The Difference Between Christian Service and Secular Service

One day last year I was dropping some of my kids off at our parish’s Mother’s Day Out program, and a woman approached me in the hall. “I need help,” she said.

I wasn’t sure what she meant. “The registration office is down that way,” I said, pointing to the Mother’s Day Out coordinator’s office.

A gaggle of moms and toddlers walked between us, pausing our conversation, and I noticed that she looked tired. Her body language was tense. It dawned on me that when she’d said she needed help, she probably wasn’t referring to Mother’s Day Out. “No, I’ve been out of work for a while…” she said. She glanced over her shoulder. “This is a church, right?”

I finally got it. I ushered my kids into their classes, then walked her toward the building where our parish’s St. Vincent de Paul Society is headquartered. We chatted for a while, and I told her about their mission and the type of help they offer, and gave her the names of some of the people I knew who are usually there. I was glad to be able to guide her to such a great place, where anyone of any religious belief system can go to get anything from food to clothing to help with home repairs to assistance paying their bills, with no strings attached (and they don’t even force you to pray). The lady seemed immensely relived as she headed over to the building.

It was such a simple exchange, but the moment stayed with me. What had just transpired felt new and right and somehow expected yet unexpected. I thought about it as I headed back to my car, and it finally occurred to me:

This is so different from atheism.

One of the biggest changes in my day-to-day life since my conversion is simply being part of a parish community, in particular that I’m surrounded by so many programs and ministries. There are groups who visit people in nursing homes, take food or communion to the home-bound, run errands for people without transportation, help women in crisis pregnancies, and visit inmates in jail, just to name a few.

There are lots of similar groups in the secular world, of course, and I know many atheists who are generous, giving people. What’s different about being a believer and being part of a church is not the fact that there are organizations that help others per se; it’s how very intimately the concept of serving others is woven into the fabric of daily life.

When I was an atheist I volunteered to tutor disadvantaged children. I gave money to the homeless and donated food to soup kitchens. The difference between then and now is that, back then, I saw those activities as an add-on to life. Adopting a common secular outlook, I had a certain set of things that I did to make my life well-rounded and fulfilling, and “helping others” was a bullet point on the list, somewhere around “traveling” and “advancing in my career.”

But becoming Catholic radically changed the list. “Serving others” is no longer one bullet point among many; it’s the overarching aim of everything else on the list. One of the most worldview-shattering truths I discovered in Christianity was the notion that living for yourself is not a valid option, and won’t make you happy anyway. When I first read the Catechism I was surprised to see that it actually had an answer to the age-old question of “What is the meaning of life?” To know, love and serve God. And how do we do that? The short answer is, by loving and serving others. That’s why we were created. That’s what we’re supposed to do. That’s how we find the lasting peace we all crave.

Throughout the ages churches have been synonymous with charity and service. Even I knew it on some subconscious level when I was an anti-Christian atheist. A friend and I once had a conversation about what we’d do if we found ourselves hungry and lost in a strange place, with no money or friends or family to turn to. After thinking about it, I said, “I guess I’d go to a church.” I knew I could probably knock on the door of any local Christian community and get some food and water, maybe even some money to help me get by until I could get on my feet. I didn’t have a high opinion of Christians, but I was aware that, for whatever reason, helping others was a foundational part of their belief system.

I didn’t get it. I never did understand why churches had such strong reputations for being places to go for help, especially considering that plenty of Christians weren’t exactly the nicest people in the world. I came up with a bunch of convoluted theories, but none of them fully explained it.

It wasn’t until that exchange with the lady in the hall by my church that it finally clicked. That morning, I hadn’t been there to work at a charitable organization. I wasn’t doing some special activity to give back to the community. I was just dropping my kids off at preschool. Yet it was a perfectly natural course of events to end up offering help in some small way to a person in need. It’s so much a part of the Christian life that there’s an entire building next to our parish church dedicated solely to that cause.

As I walked back to my car, I passed the main church building. I looked at the stained glass windows, the twelve-foot oak doors, and knew that Christ was present just on the other side. None of my theories had been correct when I was an atheist. Now that I’m a Christian myself, I understand why.

Christianity did not become a religion of service because Christians think it’s fun to be involved in charitable causes. It’s not some tradition that developed due to complicated socioeconomic forces acting on this religion’s adherents throughout the millenia. It’s not that Christians are just naturally nicer people than anyone else. What happened on the macro level to make Christian churches known throughout history as places of refuge for people in need is the same thing that happens on the micro level of the human heart when someone devotes his life to God. Simply put, it comes down to this: Wherever you find Christ, there you will also find all-encompassing, self-sacrificial love for others.

Comments

There are those that seek truth . . . and those that will use every measure to win their argument.

500 B.C. . . . Socrates could not stand the Sophists because of this very fact. All they could offer was persuasive speaking . . rhetoric. Their only goal was to win the argument, even if the argument was false.

St. Augustine 400 A.D. (before his conversion) had the same problem with Manicheanism. Their arguments were based on bits and pieces of this and that from whatever they found that could enable them to win their argument. There was no truth.

Non-believers 2013: You are a child designed by the Master’s hand. You are His beloved. Your soul was created just like mine . . . it was made for God. It will be restless until it find its rest in Him. If you are seeking truth . . . not just elements to win an argument, but truth . . . God is truth.

“Our hearts were made for you oh Lord and they are restless until they rest in you.” St. Augustine

“To fall in love with God is the greatest of all romances; To seek Him, the greatest adventure; To find Him, the greatest human achievement.” ~ St. Augustine

“Faith is to believe what you do not see; the reward of this faith is to see what you believe.”
~ St. Augustine

Posted by Lector at Mass on Monday, Jan 23, 2012 5:44 PM (EDT):

One need not believe in God to perform “good works of charity” Christian or secular. However, the idea of charitable service itself on an individual basis or that performed by any organized group has only become part of the human credo as a result of Christianity. Prior to the gospel of Jesus, such thinking was never on the human radar.

Posted by David on Monday, Oct 31, 2011 2:10 PM (EDT):

Gjuro: “hahaha [etc.]”—Thanks for the reply. You clearly made an honest intelligent effort to understand your error. (Actually, no you didn’t.)

Posted by Gjuro on Saturday, Oct 29, 2011 12:48 PM (EDT):

david: hahahahaha, I will provide no more answers to you :-))) you are self-sufficent. bye.

Posted by Beats on Thursday, Oct 27, 2011 10:52 PM (EDT):

Its like you read my mind!<a >Beats</a> You appear to know so much about this, like you wrote the book in it or something. I think that you could do with some pics to drive the message home a little bit,

Posted by David on Monday, Oct 17, 2011 5:14 PM (EDT):

That’s just the human condition, by the way: we tend to do things which frustrate our natural (i.e., noblest, most truly human) desires. At some level we all know this, and that’s why Christians believe we need grace and why man has always been naturally religious and inclined to offer sacrifice to whatever gods he believes in (in other words: piety is a natural virtue, impiety a vice, regardless of whether we have been exposed to any supernatural revelation).

Posted by David on Monday, Oct 17, 2011 5:06 PM (EDT):

As Aristotle said, all men by nature desire to know. A corollary: all men desire not to be ignorant. In other words, nobody relishes the thought that her convictions may express ignorance while the convictions of those whom she views as ignorant may be the truth. A natural reaction, then, is to insult and berate those who represent the possibility that your natural desire to know is in fact in a state of being severely frustrated. (We generally hate those whom we perceive as threatening the fulfillment of our desires, in this case, the desire to know.) In effect, then, Jemima is essentially like a dog growling at the other dogs because she is afraid they might take away her bone. She doesn’t seem to have an endgame beyond that.

Posted by Barry on Monday, Oct 17, 2011 4:51 PM (EDT):

As I read the comments, I have one question for Jenima. What is your endgame? Do you truly hope to talk Catholics or Christians out of their beliefs because you think they are silly by criticizing us? And let’s say for the sake of argument you do talk one of us out of our beliefs. Is that an accomplishment? Finally, what are you going to say when you meet Christ at the end…and I assure you, you will…and he asks you why did you not only criticize his Church, but also try and dissuade his followers from following him? I think it’s fine for you to not believe in Christ, that’s your perogative. Sad, but it is free will. However, I find it in incredibly bad taste to come on a Catholic website and start dealing out criticism. It seems more like trolling than it does actual dialogue. I don’t read in any of your comments an open mind to faith. So I end my post the same way it began…what is your endgame?

Posted by David on Monday, Sep 26, 2011 12:14 PM (EDT):

Gjuro: Please also note carefully: beyond the fact that you completely missed the point of my argument, you comments imply that I said a number of specific things which I in fact never said. You clearly aren’t reading very carefully, so please try to work on that.

Posted by David on Monday, Sep 26, 2011 12:10 PM (EDT):

Gjuro: “You obviously intentionally miss my point.” - Let me assure: I never intentionally miss a point. You are quite definitely wrong here. You have also very clearly missed my point and made the same irrational argument as before, the irrationality of which I have already clearly explained. Please read my explanation again. It is quite sufficient to point out your error. You just need to try harder to understand it.

Posted by Gjuro on Saturday, Sep 24, 2011 5:54 PM (EDT):

david:
You obviously intentionally miss my point. What I said, and you try to misrepresent is:
1) Person A says „Religion A is the only true one.“
2) Person B says „Religion B is the only true one.“
3) Person C says „Religion C is the only true one.“
4) Person D says „Religion D is the only true one.“
5) Person E says „Religion E is the only true one.“
And, of course, only one religion could be true (or none), so unless there are good arguments undeniably explaining that *only one* of them is true the only possible concolusion is that none at all are true.
I have not said that nobody is sure, you have said that. In fact, the catch really is in the fact that all believers of all sides are *definitely sure* that their religious story is true, only true and true to the last detail.
Can you describe for me how it might be possible that religious stories of ALL religions are true, if you think so? Also, can you give me undeniable argument that only one of them is true, whatever one you would like to pick? I guess you can’t, at least in a way that would be undeniable to a reasonably reasonable person.
And inability to prove any particular religion to be true and disprove others is all I want to bring to attention of the readers of this article. Of course, arguments like that old saying: „You know, WE believe this…“ does not count, for such a statement would be offered by any religion in the world.
Atheists are not at all required in that inter-religion process of disproving each other (and yes, believers *are* trying to disprove all other religions all the time). We the atheists are just standing on the side of that bloody battlefield, slightly nodding our heads and warmly smiling, waiting for a believer here and there to understand that the proofs that other religions are false equally well disprove their own religion. Period.

Posted by David M on Thursday, Sep 15, 2011 4:06 PM (EDT):

Mike, you seem to be in love with your opinions, but the serious question which you still need to ask yourself is as before: you seem to be calling ‘opinions’ or ‘insults’ what are in fact ‘arguments.’ Do you understand the difference between the former and the latter? Do you?

Posted by David M on Thursday, Sep 15, 2011 4:03 PM (EDT):

Yikes Mike: more of the same? I’m obviously not interested in your (crude and dogmatic) opinions and incredibly stupid ad hominem arguments. Are you? Seriously? Is anybody? I hope not. They’re eminently uninteresting.
-
Now you do offer one ‘argument.’ Here it is: “It’s true - you have a circular ‘argument’. But such an ‘argument’ is irrational.”—Now that’s not much of an argument, but the question is: which ‘argument’ of mine are you referring to? Can you explain how it is circular and irrational? (Or will you just claim you can’t possibly explain it to an irrational person like me? - LOL!)

Posted by Mike McCants on Thursday, Sep 15, 2011 3:32 PM (EDT):

“you seem to be calling ‘opinions’ or ‘insults’ what are in fact ‘arguments.’”
That’s your opinion. I disagree of course. It’s true - you have a circular “argument”. But such an “argument” is irrational.
“It makes no contribution to a rational discussion.”
My opinion is that you have made no contribution to a rational discussion.
“If you’re interested in intelligent discussion, you need to learn to avoid this kind of thing.”
My opinion is that a rational discussion is not possible with an irrational person like you.

Posted by David on Thursday, Sep 15, 2011 12:19 PM (EDT):

Take this example, Mike: “I’m soooo impressed with your irrational opinion - not.” —That is (at best) an opinion. It has no rational content. It does not state any premises or draw any conclusions. It makes no contribution to a rational discussion. *If* you’re interested in intelligent discussion, you need to learn to avoid this kind of thing.

Posted by David on Thursday, Sep 15, 2011 12:11 PM (EDT):

Mike, you seem to be calling ‘opinions’ or ‘insults’ what are in fact ‘arguments.’ Do you understand the difference between the former and the latter? It is crucial that you try to if you want to be able to engage in any kind of remotely rational discourse.
Mike: “I quoted a lot of sentences that other people wrote and you ignored them all. What does that say about you?” - That says about me that when someone writes a bunch of irrelevant sentences that seem not to make any kind of relevant contribution to a rational discussion, I ignore them. What do you expect me to do? (BTW, I certainly did not ignore them all - again your reading has been far too hasty and careless and so you *ignore* the plain *evidence* and believe what you want to believe and make *evidently* false statements - which - sorry - is simply tiresome, stupid, and dishonest.)

Posted by Mike McCants on Wednesday, Sep 14, 2011 1:00 PM (EDT):

“that is not rational”
I’m soooo impressed with your irrational opinion - not.
“your refusal to attempt to actually rationally engage with ideas”
Hilarious. I noticed that you completely refused to actually engage with the ideas. You simply hurl insults as usual.
“unless you are genuinely so stupid that you can’t parse the basic meaning of simple English sentences”
Well, I quoted a lot of sentences that other people wrote and you ignored them all. What does that say about you?
“your pompous boasting about your world being ‘reality’”
I noticed that you did not even bother to make any claims about your world of unreality.
“You might even realize it’s pathetic and give it up.”
Your silly irrational insults are pathetic. You should give them up.

Posted by David on Tuesday, Sep 13, 2011 1:09 PM (EDT):

Mike, when you write: “‘blah blah blah.’ Hilarious.” - that is not rational. There’s nothing rational about it at all, and your refusal to attempt to actually rationally engage with ideas you don’t agree with suggests that you are a coward, you are afraid (unless you are genuinely so stupid that you can’t parse the basic meaning of simple English sentences, which is not likely) - so you seem to be exhibiting just what Kaufmann believes James was suggesting. And of course we often hate what we fear and try to destroy it, but I’m afraid your irrational closed-minded approach is truly impotent. You should really resolve yourself to confronting that fact so that your pompous boasting about your world being ‘reality’ could become slightly less farcical. (You might even realize it’s pathetic and give it up.)

Posted by Mike McCants on Tuesday, Sep 13, 2011 12:02 PM (EDT):

From Wikipedia: “James’ central argument in “The Will to Believe” hinges on the idea that access to the evidence for whether or not certain beliefs are true depends crucially upon first adopting those beliefs without evidence.”
Hilariously circular non-argument.
I guess the proper corollary would be: Someone who does not adopt those beliefs will never have “access” to the “evidence”.
So it is true that we have nothing to discuss. We live in completely different worlds. I call mine “reality”.

Criticism: Walter Kaufmann wrote: “Instead of admitting that some traditional beliefs are comforting, James argued that “the risk of being in error is a very small matter when compared with the blessing of real knowledge,” and implied that those who did not accept religious beliefs were cowards, afraid of risking anything.” Hilarious.

From Wiki: “The only sense James believes we can make of the concept of “truth” is if we count as true the beliefs that lead us to perform actions that “agree” with the world.” Well, obviously praying does not work, so the fact that your belief leads to something that does not work counts against its being true.

From the Stanford Encyclopedia: “The title essay—published just two years earlier—proved to be controversial for seeming to recommend irresponsible or irrationally held beliefs. James later wrote that he should have called the essay “the right to believe,” to indicate his intent to justify holding certain beliefs in certain circumstances, not to claim that we can (or should) believe things simply by an act of will.”
“James applies his analysis to religious belief, particularly to the possible case in which one’s salvation depends on believing in God in advance of any proof that God exists.” Pascal’s Wager? Rejected.

“You’re really writing nonsense here”
Your opinion is noted and disregarded as irrational.
“(I know that sounds condescending, but it’s true.)”
Yes, it is condescending and no, it’s not true in my reality. My reality really is “dogmatic” in the sense that there is no “evidence” of anything non-material and therefore a belief that there is anything non-material is simply irrational. I know that sounds condescending, but it’s true. I guess that fact that you do believe that there is something non-material allows you to decide that certain things that you observe (evidence?) validate your belief. Yes, quite circular.

““People disagree so nobody is right” is the most irrational position you could possibly take.”
Yes, but the problem is that there is no “evidence” that any religion has ever made a claim that is “true”. That the different religions make conflicting claims - yes, that is interesting - but irrelevant to their claims to “truth”. That they make conflicting claims does indicate that the primary way that a person chooses a religion is irrational - they were indoctrinated as a child. That the choice of a particular religion is normally irrational indicates that all religions are probably irrational.

Posted by David on Tuesday, Sep 13, 2011 10:46 AM (EDT):

gjuro:
Obviously we all come to this discussion with different levels of initiation into reading comprehension and critical thinking. Here’s the very basic point I tried to explain and you didn’t understand: If H says “hinduism is the true religion” and C says “Catholicism is the true religion,” etc. and A says “all religions are false,” then it does not follow that A must be right, as you are claiming. That is complete nonsense, so far as a rational proof goes. Why is A right? Why not C or H? You have no reason whatsoever for picking any particular position based on this kind of argument. “People disagree so nobody is right” is the most irrational position you could possibly take. Can you see that?

Posted by David on Tuesday, Sep 13, 2011 10:39 AM (EDT):

Mike:
You’re really writing nonsense here, and I suspect even you know it. I recommend you google “william james the will to believe,” read James’ essay a few times, and think on it for a bit. Your naive dogmatism is currently just too silly to even bother with. (I know that sounds condescending, but it’s true.)

Posted by Gjuro on Tuesday, Sep 13, 2011 3:23 AM (EDT):

@maggie: I understand that believers of many colors ‘know’ what is ‘true’ for them. However, what is true for you is not ‘true’ for Jews and Muslims, not to mention miriad of other religions. If you ‘know’ that Jesus is son of God, I presume that that means that you ‘know’ that Jesus IS NOT just a prophet, as Muslims seem to believe and that you ‘know’ that hindu gods are untrue completely. Help me on that… All the best.

Posted by Maggie McConnell on Tuesday, Sep 13, 2011 2:32 AM (EDT):

@gjuro. I have always been “intellectual"and searched out all the arguments for/against God, for years and years. Very frustrating. Then one night I was reading a book “Christianity and Reincarnation.” somewhere in the middle of a sentence—no idea of what it said—in an instant I KNEW that Jesus was the son of God. Not what I had been taught or even thought. But there it was, completely undeniable and something I would and will, if called to, die for. Not a matter of argument, but a knowing. I have just had to assume that a merciful God had taken pity on all my years of seeking and simply implanted in me a conviction that I might have have kept on looking for til the day I died. Can’t explain or defend it it. All I can say is that I know—despite what I was taught and in a manner I cannot begin to understand. But it rings to mind the scripture “If you search for Him with all your heart, you will find Him. I cannot wish for you anything better. God be withnyou.

Posted by Gjuro on Tuesday, Sep 13, 2011 2:08 AM (EDT):

@david: if you say I do not know that is means to disprove something, let it be :-)))))))))) I was always under impression that believers are proving and proving and then a bit of more proving that their god is real and not made up and - even more - that their story is the only complete and true one among all the faiths in the world. The basic need of each believer I ever met is to convince me that their story is true and they all would offer me a lot of ‘proofs’ for that. Yes, I believe that that means that other religions’ gods are disproved (if they are not, that means to me that their gods and their stories are also true, which can not be true at the same time). You tell me what word would you choose for this ‘proofs’ and ‘proving’, it is not my vocabulary. I will accept any word you choose.

Posted by Mike McCants on Monday, Sep 12, 2011 8:33 PM (EDT):

“I am afraid you must be profoundly intellectually deficient and I’m afraid I can’t help you with that.”
Look in a mirror to see someone who is intellectually deficient due to his commitment to “belief without evidence”.
“I don’t see how the atheist ... has that kind of integration or support of her inclination to serve ...”
But that’s stupid. Most of the “support” is Government support and that is secular. Even the Catholic organizations provide “support” without proselytizing. That’s effectively secular. You use of “atheist” in this sentence is simply “poisoning the well”.
“inherent to her lack of belief in God.”
A nonsense phrase as usual for you.

Posted by David on Monday, Sep 12, 2011 3:15 PM (EDT):

Kylyssa, to be clear: I think you are wrong to read Jennifer as talking about the personal superiority of Christians who serve. She specifically points out that Christians are often *not* “the nicest people in the world.” The point is that as a believer, whatever inclinations to ‘niceness’ you might have are integrated into a robust system of belief as well as receiving tangible support from a community of believers. That seems right to me and I don’t see how the atheist, even though she may be personally very kind and devoted to others, as I’m sure you are, has that kind of integration or support of her inclination to serve inherent to her lack of belief in God.

Posted by David on Monday, Sep 12, 2011 2:31 PM (EDT):

gjuro,
You clearly don’t know what it means to ‘disprove’ something. Just because there are arguments on opposite sides of a question does not mean that the arguments on each side are of equal weight. I’m afraid your position is thoroughly nonsensical (in the sense that it would literally make all argument, about *anything*, futile).

Posted by David on Monday, Sep 12, 2011 2:27 PM (EDT):

Kylyssa, so again you are talking about general bad impressions, but my question is still: What specifically did Jennifer actually write that you disagree with? Rather than complaining about her alleged Christian-superiority complex, could you just explain that Jen wrote “...,” and you disagree with her claim because…?

Posted by David on Monday, Sep 12, 2011 2:18 PM (EDT):

“You have no point.”
Doh! Mike, if you really are unable to see my point (i.e., presumably, *any* of my points), I am afraid you must be profoundly intellectually deficient and I’m afraid I can’t help you with that.

Posted by David on Monday, Sep 12, 2011 2:13 PM (EDT):

Jan, read paragraphs six and eight in context. Your comments don’t make sense. Also there is no per se difference between a ‘qualitative distinction’ and a ‘distinction of difference’ and your distinction between distinctions here seems to be purely arbitrary.

Posted by gjuro on Sunday, Sep 11, 2011 3:31 AM (EDT):

I have read a lot of heavy words here. However, in my whole life I have never heard a reasonable answer to this question: If I were to want to choose a religion in my adult age, what one would that be? Give me some arguments… I understand that ‘you believe’ and that ‘fathers of your fathers believed’ this or that, but that is not the argument. You will give me a bunch of statements about what is holly for you, why is that true and how adherents of other religions are all wrong and their gods false. But, what astonishes me is that I have not found a believer yet, of any religion, THAT UNDERSTANDS that his or her arguments in favour of his or her god and religion are OF EQUAL WEIGHT as arguments of adherent of any other religion in favour of that other person’s religion. If he or she thinks that teachings of his or her religion disproves ALL other religions, then each other religions’ teachings equally easily disproves his or her god and religion. And there might be ONLY ONE completely true religious story, if I understand things properly. And I do not see any valid arguments why ‘our’ religion (or any other religion) would be ‘the true one’. So, it seems to me that religious teachings of many hundred religions worldwide easily disproves each other themselves, so there is no need that somebody from outside (like atheists) disprove this or that particular religion or god. You are all disproved, people, you disprove yourselves. Go home and enjoy your life, your kids, family and other people. There are many other things in life to enjoy and worth of your support. And keep in mind that the second you start to disprove somebody else’s beliefs, you are automatically disproving your beliefs, too.

Posted by Kylyssa Shay on Saturday, Sep 10, 2011 6:59 PM (EDT):

In response to David:
I disagree that the blogger’s conversion to Catholicism is what makes her a better person. I think she has just lived a giving life and has naturally grown to be more giving and empathetic as most people who decide to live a giving life often do. There’s no need to phrase it in terms of Christian service being in some way superior to giving of yourself simply because you care about people. To those who question why atheists are ever giving in the first place I can only answer for myself. If we (humans) don’t help each other, who will? Don’t you feel anything for other people? My feelings of pain for other people’s pain (empathy)leads me to care what happens to them so I feel moved to help. I don’t need to help people for the love of Jesus if I can just cut out the middle-man and do it for the love of the person who needs help. Volunteering and charity can come from your own love. I’m not downgrading helping people as a part of your religion; I’m just saying that helping people is equally good no matter what inspires it. If I help someone because I can’t bear to see them suffering, why is that inherently inferior to helping someone to please God? The blogger compares atheist charity to fulfilling a bullet point on a list. Perhaps that was her experience but it doesn’t follow that all atheists are like that. We, too, mature and do things from love. I feel she would have moved on to that point as naturally as breathing even if she had never became a Catholic. She’s a good and kind person no matter her religion. However, I don’t see the need to feed anti-atheist bigotry by expressing how superior she feels it to be now that she’s doing charitable things for the love of God rather than from whatever her previous motives were.

Posted by Mike McCants on Saturday, Sep 10, 2011 10:10 AM (EDT):

“completely fails to address my point.”
You have no point. You offered your opinion and my opinion (and that of natural scientists) is the opposite. How can anyone “argue” with an opinion? You called me ignorant and I pointed out that I am in good company. That seemed to me to address your opinion. I think you are ignorant of course. And irrational. That’s what faith is - belief without evidence. I find that to be irrational. But it is a nice social club.
“Pretending that you can justify such an irrational approach to discussing religion ...”
Hilarious. Religion is an irrational delusion. Why is there anything to discuss? What could possibly be a basis for such a discussion? You have your holy book of mythology and your inerrant leader and your list of silly teachings. There can be no discussion. It is you who is irrational for even think that there could be a rational discussion of religion.
“pretending that you are somehow in “good company” could only impress someone who is as irrational as yourself. (And I am not such a person.)”
Hilariously irrational. You of course think you are in the “good company” of Catholics. I think those who understand the natural world the best are the most rational. What could we possibly discuss? We have no common ground.
“post lengthy and carefully articulated arguments on a Catholic blog.”
Hilarious. I take 10 minutes every day or two and I have no arguments. I merely have an opinion - there is no evidence for Thor or Odin or Zeus or Apollo or any other god. That’s just a fact and that you choose to ignore it is your prerogative.
“My Mom used to say that atheism is a belief system.”
What a stupid thing to say. Not stamp collecting is not a hobby.
“Christians believe in something that science cannot prove”
The word “prove” is irrational in that context. Science cannot even consider claims of something supernatural - beyond nature.
“atheists believe in something that science cannot disprove.”
What a stupid thing to say. Atheists don’t “believe” at all. Atheists accept reality. Atheists accept the natural world as it is without any extra add-ons of nonsense.
“She firmly believed that atheists were merely responding to the sense of the Holy Spirit moving in their lives”
Hilariously irrational nonsense. I respond to reality and there cannot be such a thing as a “spirit” in my reality. But you are welcome to make up any old nonsense that you want to if it makes you feel better about yourself.
“some of them could get pretty desperate in their denial”
That’s stupid. It’s certainly not important unless some religious fanatic is going to fly an airplane into a building or get elected President.
“Me thinks perhaps they protest too much?”
Nah. It’s simply fun pointing out the irrational behavior of religious believers. What would they say if someone desecrated a cracker? Wow!
“are their arguments an ultimately futile attempt to rationalize their own beliefs?”
What a stupid thing to say. I have no arguments. I have what I consider to be a rational opinion. I have no beliefs. I simply have a non-belief.
“Why do they even feel that need if they think their point is so obvious?”
Well, religion is “evil” in many cases in my opinion. So it should be opposed when it tries to influence political decisions in its irrationality.
“One only has to read of the lives of saints to know that the Holy Spirit”
Hilariously irrational.
“The atheist is closer to heaven than the agnostic, for at least the atheist believes in something.”
What a stupid thing to say. It’s simply not true. In fact, the number one arch-atheist Dawkins wrote a best-seller called The God Delusion and he says “there is probably no god”. That’s not belief. You seem to be ignorant. But an agnostic is simply a fence-sitter. My opinion is that an agnostic thinks there is a reasonable chance that there is a god. That’s silly.
“atheism is a genuine (if shaky) belief system.”
Stupid, stupid, stupid. I have seldom seen such an impressive list of ignorant sentences.

Posted by Jan on Saturday, Sep 10, 2011 6:07 AM (EDT):

David, read paragraph six and eight, perhaps with any of the brief guides to semantic content available from any good bookstore. She’s setting a qualitative distinction where there is only a distinction of difference (i.e., who is doing the helping), and elevating Catholic service over that performed by atheists or anyone else for that matter. This is hardly true, and certainly not helpful.

Posted by Richard on Friday, Sep 9, 2011 7:11 PM (EDT):

I find it interesting that so many atheists find a compelling need to post lengthy and carefully articulated arguments on a Catholic blog. My Mom used to say that atheism is a belief system. Christians believe in something that science cannot prove, and atheists believe in something that science cannot disprove. She firmly believed that atheists were merely responding to the sense of the Holy Spirit moving in their lives, and that some of them could get pretty desperate in their denial. (Me thinks perhaps they protest too much?) Are atheists trying to convince people of faith, or are their arguments an ultimately futile attempt to rationalize their own beliefs? Why do they even feel that need if they think their point is so obvious? One only has to read of the lives of saints to know that the Holy Spirit pulled many of them kicking and screaming from their owm non-belief. An old family friend who was a priest and philosopher once told me, “The atheist is closer to heaven than the agnostic, for at least the atheist believes in something.” I think he was right; atheism is a genuine (if shaky) belief system.

Posted by David on Friday, Sep 9, 2011 5:57 PM (EDT):

“saying ‘mine is better than yours because I’m a Catholic’ is petty and demeaning.”
Jan, since Jennifer never said this, I think it is petty and demeaning for you to pretend she did. As I said to Kylyssa: What did Jennifer write that you specifically disagree with?

Posted by David on Friday, Sep 9, 2011 5:49 PM (EDT):

Hi again Mike. As I said before, the premise you offered was not only *not* ridiculous, it was unquestionably true, and only an unbelievably ignorant person could possibly believe otherwise. You responded to me by writing a bunch of irrelevant stuff that completely fails to address my point. Sadly, that seems to be your standard behaviour. Pretending that you can justify such an irrational approach to discussing religion (or anything, for that matter) by pretending that you are somehow “in good company” could only impress someone who is as irrational as yourself. (And I am not such a person.) I hope you can try to understand that.

Posted by Jan on Wednesday, Sep 7, 2011 8:50 PM (EDT):

I’m a Catholic, so no problems with defining service as part of a wider belief structure. The problem I see though is one being enumerated in many comments already: Jennifer seems to be asserting a particular superiority for Catholic ‘service’, over ‘service’ per se. I also find it condescending and arrogant by measure. I’m curious about how she can boldly assert that Catholic service, in whatever form, is somehow ‘better’ than the work of Médecins Sans Frontières, or Oxfam, or Save the Children, or any one of thousands of groups or individuals who choose to be involved in service simply because they see that someone else will be better off if they do. Jennifer says ‘it’s how very intimately the concept of serving others is woven into the fabric of daily life’. Sorry, but that’s a generic claim that’s applied to the religious and non-religious alike; saying ‘mine is better than yours because I’m a Catholic’ is petty and demeaning.

Posted by Mike McCants on Tuesday, Sep 6, 2011 6:59 PM (EDT):

From Eric MacDonald:
“This post is a comment on Edward Feser’s theory of morality in his book The Last Superstition. In an earlier post I ridiculed the conclusions to which it comes, especially the way in which this conclusion is expressed in the specific case of sexual morality. That it is so open to ridicule is, I believe, a sign that natural law theory somewhere takes a wrong turn, though this is not, of course, in itself, an argument.”
“The fundamental reason that natural law morality fails is because it contains an implicit tautology, and therefore cannot give us reasons to act as it proposes we should.”

Posted by rover serton on Tuesday, Sep 6, 2011 6:55 PM (EDT):

Funny, since I believe that they will be identical, I don’t fear 10 minutes after my death any more than 10 minutes before my becoming aware of existence.

“becoming aware of existence” is awkward, does anyone know a word that means that? Conception isn’t it since there is no awareness till much later, Birth probably isn’t right since there is pain but no self awareness. Suggestions?

Posted by Mike McCants on Tuesday, Sep 6, 2011 6:40 PM (EDT):

“The premise above is not only not ridiculous, it is unquestionably true, and only an unbelievably ignorant person could possibly believe otherwise.”

Well, my previous quote:

“The initial dataset, published in 2007 in the journal ‘Social Problems’, provided a picture of scientists remarkably similar to that revealed by Edward Larson and Larry Witham in their famous 1997 Nature paper, with less than 8% of natural scientists in Ecklund’s survey stating that they had no doubt about the existence of God. Fully 75.2% of natural scientists questioned did not state a belief in God.”

So my opinion is that I am in good company. So one of us is wrong and I’m not interested in Pascal’s Wager.

Premise: Something in that book means something.
Conclusion: After death, something (a soul?) continues to “exist” somewhere (heaven or hell?).
Debate: Nope. Both premise and conclusion are ridiculous.

“you’re a funny guy.”

The Woody Allen quote from WEIT yesterday:

“I don’t mind dying, I just don’t want to be there when it happens.”

Jerry Coyne: “Humans are, I think, the only animals that really comprehend their own mortality, and much of religion involves trying to show that we live on in some form after death. We atheists don’t believe that, and the natural reaction would be to think that atheism, and its attendant notion that when we’re gone, we’re totally gone, entails an increased fear of mortality. Curiously, though, an atheist friend recently told me that the rejection of gods had freed her from the fear of death.”

“I’m interested in readers’ opinions on this issue. Does your atheism make you feel better or worse about your mortality, and why?”

Followed by 237 comments!!!

From a previous column: “As I’ve mentioned before, 81% of Americans believe in heaven, 78% in angels, 70% in Satan, and 70% in hell. Why else would there be so much support in America for evangelical Christian politicians like Rick Perry, Sarah Palin, or Michele Bachmann? So yes, dispelling those ridiculous beliefs is a major goal of New Atheism.”

Posted by David on Tuesday, Sep 6, 2011 4:12 PM (EDT):

“Premise: There really is something in that book that means something.”
Mike, you’re a funny guy. I don’t know where you got that argument, it certainly is nonsensical, but certainly not for the reason you give. The premise above is not only not ridiculous, it is unquestionably true, and only an unbelievably ignorant person could possibly believe otherwise. ...Which takes me back to the point about the need for you to come to understand what makes nonsense nonsense.

Posted by David on Tuesday, Sep 6, 2011 4:03 PM (EDT):

Kylyssa: “This blog post comes off as, well, a suggestion that atheists who volunteer are somehow “less than” or inferior to Christians who volunteer.”
I re-read the post and I’m wondering where exactly you got this impression from? What did Jennifer write that you specifically disagree with? (I would take away this point: “One of the most worldview-shattering truths I discovered in Christianity was the notion that living for yourself is not a valid option, and won’t make you happy anyway.”)

Posted by Mike McCants on Tuesday, Sep 6, 2011 3:58 PM (EDT):

“you imagine that you are making some kind of obvious point”
Yes, of course. That silly book of mythology holds zero weight compared to accepted science.
“in which case you are mistaken”
Nope. There must be an alternative to my being in error. Perhaps 40% of the US adults simply don’t care that their silly religion conflicts with science.

Premise: There really is something in that book that means something.
Conclusion: Some supernatural being inserted a “soul” into home sapiens some time in the last 100,000 years.
Debate: Nope. The premise and conclusion are ridiculous.

Posted by David on Tuesday, Sep 6, 2011 3:57 PM (EDT):

“One must listen to nonsense in order to understand why it is nonsense.”
Indeed. However, when one constantly commits basic errors in reasoning (like you do), one ought to first listen and understand the nature of one’s own nonsense. Or rather, one must first grasp what it is that makes nonsense nonsensical in order to understand whether any particular proposition is in fact nonsense. You seem to be demonstrating here that you haven’t yet taken this first and most necessary of steps.

Posted by David on Tuesday, Sep 6, 2011 3:49 PM (EDT):

“How should one debate this premise and conclusion?”
You either really have no idea how to answer this question, in which case you are lacking in intelligence, or you imagine that you are making some kind of obvious point just by asking the question, in which case you are mistaken and should try to state that point more clearly.

Posted by Mike McCants on Tuesday, Sep 6, 2011 2:15 PM (EDT):

Here is a premise that many intelligent, sincere people hold:
The Bible is inerrant and literally true.
Supposedly about 40% of US adults accept that premise and this conclusion:
The Earth was created in its current form about 6000 years ago and evolution is a lie.
How should one debate this premise and conclusion?
Is it “close-minded” to point out that science has made a decision?

Posted by Mike McCants on Tuesday, Sep 6, 2011 1:48 PM (EDT):

From Today’s WEIT:

“The initial dataset, published in 2007 in the journal ‘Social Problems’, provided a picture of scientists remarkably similar to that revealed by Edward Larson and Larry Witham in their famous 1997 Nature paper, with less than 8% of natural scientists in Ecklund’s survey stating that they had no doubt about the existence of God. Fully 75.2% of natural scientists questioned did not state a belief in God.”

This reminds me of statement by the Young Earth Creationist Don McLeroy: “Someone has to stand up to the experts!” He was elected to the Texas State Board of Education and subsequently appointed as Chairman of the SBOE by Rick Perry. He was rejected as Chairman when he came before the Texas Senate for confirmation. He was then defeated in his attempt to be re-elected.

It would seem that every religion is against the “experts” - those scientists who study the natural world.

“You fail to differentiate Theology from Logic, Mathematics and Philosophy. All of them study non-material concepts.”

True, but the non-material concepts in logic and mathematics really are useful in describing the natural world. Philosophy may or may not be useful in understanding human nature. Theology is simply useless.

“You worship “Science” without having read a single serious book on the Philosophy of Science.”

Yes, the Courtier’s Reply - from rational wiki: “The Courtier’s Reply is a term popularized by biologist/blogger PZ Myers for a logical fallacy that essentially boils down to: “But you haven’t read enough on it!”“

“You have no intention to debate”

Correct. There is no debate. There is reality and there is “wishful thinking” and there is no debate.

“You claim to have heard all the arguments and rejected them, but none of them are worth discussing? Why were they worth hearing, then?”

One must listen to nonsense in order to understand why it is nonsense.

“I don’t see why any premiss that intelligent, sincere people take seriously should be dismissed as not worth discussing.”

I noticed that you failed to state any such premise. So it’s hard to guess what premise you might think is worth discussing. At any rate, it is clear that many intelligent, sincere people accept some religion. That does not mean that any such religion is based on any valid premise. Perhaps they are simply indulging in “wishful thinking” because it’s a nice social club to be a member of.

And, of course, it’s certainly possible that the premise that you think might be worth discussing has already had a lot of discussion in the last few thousand years and therefore it’s time to make up one’s mind and decide that further discussion is simply unnecessary.

There’s a difference between a “closed mind” and a mind that has heard the “evidence” and made a decision.

Posted by jongnono on Tuesday, Sep 6, 2011 8:33 AM (EDT):

it’s really great to find people who knows the difference.. truly it’s a grace. we’ll continue to pray for the conversion of the former lol… it goes beyond personal point of views. atheist claim they can also love.. well good for them and as they claim they’re happy. :)) we’ll that’s the point. there goes the courtyard of the gentiles.. whew:)

Posted by rover serton on Monday, Sep 5, 2011 6:51 PM (EDT):

Sorry to not respond for so long, had a great weekend camping with my family.

Con o: “So Lenin and Stalin did not kill because they were Atheist, well let me tell you Lenin murdered Millions of Christian because they Christians, and what is more he closed many Christian Churches and in their places opened Museums Of Atheism,” Exactly! Dictators dictate (suprise suprise) and they hate competition. A Cathlic that swears alegiance with the Pope is by definition not following a dictaor and they don’t like that. Same for following Jesus.

Oh, btw, I can’t vote for a Catholic politician because I don’t know his loyalty to the constitution or the church. When in doubt, would he outlaw abortion, contraception, meat on friday, blasphemy, Gays, evolutionists, adulterers, non virgins, the list goes on and on.

Some one (and I can’t find the reference sorry) questioned what “Catholic guilt” is. There are so many references and definitions, it would be silly for me to list any.

Posted by David on Monday, Sep 5, 2011 2:55 PM (EDT):

David: “aren’t you effectively just telling whomever might be listening, “I am very closed-minded when it comes to discussing ‘god’”?”
Mike: No, that would be stupid. Thank you for your condescension. What I am saying is that I have heard them all and rejected them all. Name one.
-
Mike, you’re right that would be stupid. In fact, since that’s what you’re still doing, it *is* stupid. Whether or not you notice, you are making ‘theological arguments’ - just very bad ones. Still, you can’t claim to reject all such arguments while at the same time making them. That would be - and *is* - stupid.
-
David: “that’s a very bad argument”
Mike: From Wikipedia: “A deductive argument asserts that the truth of the conclusion is a logical consequence of the premises.”
But, of course, since you have no premises worth discussing, you have no arguments worth discussing. Name one.
-
Again, Mike, that’s a very bad argument. Your wikipedia quote is irrelevant and you can discuss an argument without discussing the premisses per se (i.e., you have produced another non sequitur). You claim to have heard all the arguments and rejected them, but none of them are worth discussing? Why were they worth hearing, then? In any case, being an open-minded person, I don’t see why any premiss that intelligent, sincere people take seriously should be dismissed as not worth discussing. I think that would be - and *is* - stupid and closed-minded.

Posted by Kylyssa Shay on Monday, Sep 5, 2011 11:05 AM (EDT):

This blog post comes off as, well, a suggestion that atheists who volunteer are somehow “less than” or inferior to Christians who volunteer. I am an atheist and a long-time volunteer. Volunteering and charity is not a bullet point for me, it’s about caring for my family, the human race. Just because it was a bullet point for you when you were an atheist it doesn’t mean it is for everyone.

When I was able, I took homeless teens and young adults into my home on a regular basis. I also have volunteered in other poverty-related programs too numerous to mention in a short comment. Even now that I’m disabled, most of my time goes into projects to build empathy toward homeless people. I consider my work helping other people to be the most important aspect of my life. That’s not a bullet point, it’s caring for other humans. If you wish to denigrate your own former motives, have at it, but applying them to everyone isn’t cool.

It doesn’t follow that becoming Christian has made you superior to all atheists simply because you are superior to yourself when you were an atheist. Human beings grow and change and often become kinder, more empathetic and giving people over time. I’m superior to my younger self, too, when it comes to caring about others and I didn’t get a religion.

Don’t you remember the hate speech directed at you when you were an atheist? Why even provide a dim echo of it yourself? Why spread the myth that atheists aren’t quite as good as everyone else? How does that serve the interest of being loving? How is it helping anyone?

Posted by Nick on Monday, Sep 5, 2011 10:58 AM (EDT):

>> “they don’t even know the difference between Science, Philosophy, Logic,
>> Mathematics and Theology.”
> One of these is not like the others. Theology is the study of something
> “non-material” that does not seem to affect the material world

You fail to differentiate Theology from Logic, Mathematics and Philosophy. All of them study non-material concepts. I still highly suspect that you don’t know the difference between Science and (for example) Philosophy or Logic. You worship “Science” without having read a single serious book on the Philosophy of Science.

> “Hilarious. Except for the creation of a large number of competing social clubs.”

Oh, I’m done. You have no intention to debate with maturity. You just went here to troll, offend and waste your time. This is puerile. I’m not responding to you any more.

Posted by Mike McCants on Monday, Sep 5, 2011 4:32 AM (EDT):

“they don’t even know the difference between Science, Philosophy, Logic, Mathematics and Theology.”

Hilarious. One of these is not like the others. Theology is the study of something “non-material” that does not seem to affect the material world except for the creation of a large number of competing social clubs.

“I don’t believe in God”

Define “believe”. Does that mean “accept without evidence”? Which god? Zeus? Odin? Thor? Apollo? Yes, I fail to accept any of these gods without evidence.

“because Science has found no God.”

There was an interesting discussion recently - what would it even mean to “look for a god”, to try to “find a god”, to see “evidence for a god”? Could there even be “evidence for a god”? Even Dawkins in The Good Delusion says that “there is probably no god”. He does not claim that “science has found no god”. It seems that you have set up a strawman in your ignorance.

“I am smart and all religious people are stupid”.

Hilarious. Let’s change that to “religious people are not really rational to believe in something for which there is no evidence”.

“I hate being rude, but this is a common pattern among these New Atheists:”

I don’t mind being rude, but this is a common pattern among those who attempt to defend their irrationality:

“they worship some vague concept of science, but they can’t even define it.”

They worship some vague concept of a god, but they can’t even define it. Did it ever do anything in the past? Does it actually do anything in the present? If so, what? How do you know?

“What is your age anyway?”

It will soon be required that I accept a “required minimum distribution” from my IRA.

“I’m not the one who goes to another blog to offend people there”

The original statement was:

“This is so different from atheism.”

I find that statement offensive. Why was the word “atheism” chosen here? I label that a “cheap shot” and uncharitable of a Christian. Rephrase as:

“This is so different from what a non-religious person would have done.”

What does “this” really refer to?

“I told her about their mission and the type of help they offer”

So “this” refers to 5 minutes of directing a person to a place where they could receive appropriate help? Rephrase as:

“What I did is so different from what a non-religious person would have done.”

Now I label this as ridiculous and an obvious attempt at “holier-that-thou”.

Now let’s look at Catholic Charities. They spent $4.2 billion and of that apparently 14% was contributed and 67% was US Government funds. That makes the government contribution about 80%. Of course it says on their web page:

“As a professional association and social justice movement, Catholic Charities USA supports local Catholic Charities as they provide help and create hope for over 9 million people each year regardless of religious, social, or economic backgrounds.”

That certainly matches the requirements of the secular non-profit organizations that I volunteer for. They also receive government funds and provide services to everyone that fits the program goals.

So why shouldn’t Catholic Charities be considered essentially secular? Do they proselytize those that they serve? Jennifer says no:

“with no strings attached (and they don’t even force you to pray).”

So this seems to be a very well-organized essentially secular non-profit organization that has the word Catholic in its name.

So, finally, we come to motive:

“When I was an atheist I volunteered ...”

Oops. She is back to playing the atheist card and a personal anecdote. Let’s not go there.

“Wherever you find Christ, there you will also find all-encompassing, self-sacrificial love for others.”

Well, that’s her personal opinion and it’s hard to argue with her. I can only speak from my personal experience. The employees and volunteers of the secular non-profit organizations that I work with certainly seem to do the best they can to provide the appropriate care for others. The employees of one organization knew that I do income taxes for the other, so they asked me to work a particular client who had failed to file income taxes and I was happy to do that.

Posted by Nick on Sunday, Sep 4, 2011 11:43 PM (EDT):

I hate being rude, but this is a common pattern among these New Atheists:
they worship some vague concept of science, but they can’t even define it. Few of them are aware that Logic is not science, for example.

This is some nerdy version of the “I-am-13-and-I-think-I-am-superman” syndrome.

I know because I suffered from it.

In my time, when I was 13, I won some Mathematics prizes (such as a silver medal in the national Math Olympics) and I started thinking I could compete with Gauss (yes, really). I also thought that Mathematics (and related areas such as Physics and Chemistry) was the only intelligent area of knowledge. I thought that Philosophy was for “fags”.

Fortunately I grew up. I know that I am not even a great Mathematician. What’s more, I know that, while I used to despise philosophy, I am not even close to the intelligence of a good philosopher such as Aristotle or Augustine. The same holds for other areas of knowledge I used to despise.

I see nowadays that, in those arrogant years of my adolescence, I didn’t even know what Mathematics and Philosophy were.

If only these new atheists could do the same. If only they could grow up, and realize they don’t even know the difference between Science, Philosophy, Logic, Mathematics and Theology. Then they could see how stupid they sound when they say “I don’t believe in God because Science has found no God. I am smart and all religious people are stupid”.

Posted by Nick on Sunday, Sep 4, 2011 11:17 PM (EDT):

>> “Sometimes, ignorance and arrogance come together.”
> You should recognize yourself in that sentence.

I’m not the one who goes to another blog to offend people there,
and cannot even substantiate it with knowledge. If you worship “science”,
but does not even know what “science” is (have you ever read Rudolf Carnap?
Karl Popper? Were you even aware that mathematics is not science? What is your age anyway?), then you need to grow up.

Posted by Mike McCants on Sunday, Sep 4, 2011 9:43 PM (EDT):

“Sometimes, ignorance and arrogance come together.”
You should recognize yourself in that sentence.

Posted by Nick on Sunday, Sep 4, 2011 4:26 PM (EDT):

@Mike McCants

>> “They demand empirical evidence, even when God is not material.”
>> “which, as a Math lover, I find very ignorant and even ridiculous”
> You are hilarious.

Have you ever studied philosophy? Have you ever specifically studied the philosophy of science? Do you know, for example, that Mathematics is not science (not even close)? Do you know that Logic is not science? Do yo know the difference between Mathematics, philosophy and science?

If not, I think you are just the typical 13-year old with the I-think-I’m-a-genious syndrome. Sometimes, ignorance and arrogance come together.

Sorry.

After you grow up, and study more, you will hopefully be wiser - and more humble.

Posted by Mike McCants on Sunday, Sep 4, 2011 3:59 PM (EDT):

“They demand empirical evidence, even when God is not material.”
“which, as a Math lover, I find very ignorant and even ridiculous”
You are hilarious.

Posted by Nick on Sunday, Sep 4, 2011 1:32 PM (EDT):

@Mike McCants on Sunday, Sep 4, 2011 11:13 AM (EDT):

What’s more, why do certain atheists seem to have nothing better to do
than waste their time on Catholic blogs? I assure you, you will make none of us atheists. You have nothing new to say; all you do is repeat the same old fallacies. We know all of it already. It all boils down to “There is not God because we cannot measure no God”. By seeing the fallacy of atheist arguments, my faith is only stronger. If atheists were right, they wouldn’t have to spend their whole time on Catholics blogs calling us names, engaging in fallacies and slander, and repeating 1000 variations of their mantra “There is not God because we cannot measure no God” (which, as a Math lover, I find very ignorant and even ridiculous).

Posted by Nick on Sunday, Sep 4, 2011 1:14 PM (EDT):

@Mike McCants on Sunday, Sep 4, 2011 11:13 AM (EDT):

> “Why don’t we? Because if there is no evidence for a God, then there are no theological arguments because there’s no theology. It’s like seeing both sides of an argument about the behavior of leprechauns.”

That is a very stupid thing to say. Atheism would be one side of the theological argument.

Second, new atheists think there is no evidence for God because they refuse to see them. They demand empirical evidence, even when God is not material.

That is like demanding empirical evidence for the existence of infinite prime numbers. It is proof that you don’t understand Mathematics.

Posted by Mike McCants on Sunday, Sep 4, 2011 12:13 PM (EDT):

From today’s WEIT:

“What is Wood’s big indictment of the New Atheists? It’s this: unlike novelists, New Athiests don’t “want to see both sides of a theological argument.”

Why don’t we? Because if there is no evidence for a God, then there are no theological arguments because there’s no theology. It’s like seeing both sides of an argument about the behavior of leprechauns.”

Posted by Mike McCants on Saturday, Sep 3, 2011 11:47 PM (EDT):

“from what I am told the Catholic Church is the biggest private provider of Social Services in the country.”

The US Government is the biggest provider of social services in the US just like the governments of Europe are the biggest providers of social services in their countries. After all, it’s so easy to just print more money and give it away.

A comment from Catholic Charities USA:

“Catholic Charities USA is pleased that our nation’s policymakers have averted the likely economic disaster that would have resulted from default, however, it is clear that the deal they have reached to raise the nation’s debt ceiling puts tremendous pressure on critical domestic discretionary spending. While a national economic crisis has been avoided, the mandated cuts to domestic programs have the potential to cause an even greater economic crisis for the nation’s most vulnerable citizens.

“We remain deeply concerned that with an approach that focuses solely on cutting spending, efforts to balance the nation’s budget will continue to result in dramatic negative impact on the nearly 48 million Americans living in poverty, neglecting the moral imperative to adequately address the needs of those most vulnerable among us.”

From their June report:

“If you take cost effectiveness a step further into a social enterprise
investment framework, you’re looking at the principle of
“social return on investment”—a measure of the financial benefit
you gain for the money you invest. This principle is becoming
increasingly salient to many state and federal legislators as
they contemplate the nearly $1 trillion our nation spends each
year on safety net and social programs.”

The revenue source breakdown for Catholic Charities USA says that of the $4.2 billion dollars total income, the US Government supplied 67% of that total in 2009. Diocesan church support was 3%. Community support was 11%. So it’s mainly supported by the US Government.

Posted by con O sullivan on Saturday, Sep 3, 2011 1:41 PM (EDT):

Mike McCain, Maybe the Atheists who seem to be suffering physicly and mentally obout the cross on ground zero, and trying to get it removed, would put their energy to doing something usefull in their community things might be better, Americans have no conpempt for Atheism, have Atheists their own newspaper in the New York Times, and is not Hollywood a great supporter of Atheism, and do not tell me that Barrack Obama and his friends in Washington are opposed to Atheism. I would rather be an Atheist in America than a Christian in the Atheist run North Korea. About St Vincent De Paul, there are many people in my community that would be. hungry and cold without the help of this group, I do not live in the USA but from what I am told the Catholic Church is the biggest Private provider of Social Srrvices in the country. Maybe the problem that some people find is the bigotry and hatred of the likes of Hitchens Dawkins and Bill Maher,but then that trio have done nothing to benefit anyone except themselves.

Posted by LRoy on Saturday, Sep 3, 2011 11:17 AM (EDT):

The time may come when I may have to rely on St Vincent de Paul myself for my own needs. In the meantime, I help the community by buying-while I’ve got money even though I’m unemployed-food and other items (did I mention I love to shop?) for those even less fortunate than I am.
I hope it counts as charitable works-intended or just for the fun of shopping for other people, or I’m in trouble.

Posted by Mike McCants on Saturday, Sep 3, 2011 10:42 AM (EDT):

“St Vincent Society De Paul Sociey”
I don’t much like picking on someone who seems defenseless.
What tiny fraction of the total Catholic wealth goes to that group?
“I do not see any American Atheist Organisation setting up such a group”
The worthy organizations I mentioned above are simply secular. Considering the contempt that Americans hold for atheists, any organization that explicitly claimed to be an atheist charity would get virtually nothing in contributions. And you wonder why you do not see any such organizations?

Posted by con O sullivan on Saturday, Sep 3, 2011 10:41 AM (EDT):

Rover Serton. So Lenin and Stalin did not kill because they were Atheist, well let me tell you Lenin murdered Millions of Christian because they Christians, and what is more he closed many Christian Churches and in their places opened Museums Of Atheism, “Atheism and Marxism is a natural and inseperable part of Marxism wrote Lenin, and we all know that Lenin was a Marxist. So to distance yourself and your Atheism from Lenin is laughable, yes there is a glass ceiling in the Catholic Church which i do not agree with., but this seems to apply to the Presidency of the Usa, and it took until 2008 until an African American President was elected and it was 1960 before a Catholic President was elected

Posted by con O sullivan on Saturday, Sep 3, 2011 10:26 AM (EDT):

Mike McCant As a Catholic I have no Catholic Guilt and any Catholic I know has not this Catholic guilt thing, so we will have to wait until Mr Serton gets back to us on that. As I Commented earlier why are you reading and commenting on Catholic blogs, I thought you would be reading the Atheists favoutite newspaper The New York Times. Maybe you should get your facts right , when I collect in my Church each Month for the St Vincent Society De Paul Sociey to help the poor,100% of the money collected goes to those looking after those who have nothing donated by the members of my Church, it is available to any poor person, being Catholic or Atheist. Strange I do not see any American Atheist Organisation setting up such a group,It could be called after past famous Atheists, like Stalin, Lenin, Pol Pot , Hitchens or Dawkins

Posted by Mike McCants on Saturday, Sep 3, 2011 9:58 AM (EDT):

“It is intersting EVERY time Jennifer blogs, she mentions she was an atheist. PZ Myers has pointed to her in his blog.”

PZ did not link to this particular silly nonsense. Her main offense this time is: “This is so different from atheism.” Now that’s disgusting, but PZ ignored it. But I admit that I am here because of the terminally silly “Reasoning with atheists if you assume that a god exists”. And I am being somewhat amused, so perhaps I will stay a little longer.

“THEY PAY. They ... volunteering their time.”

This is just as true when an atheist donates money and time to a good cause. I recommend IRC, Finca, Doctors without Borders, WWF. His point is that a lot of the money goes to build a church which is tax-free. So that land does not help pay for schools, etc. The good charities use 90% of their funds for productive work. A church uses 10%?? That does not qualify as a good charity.

“you should have “Atheist Guilt” over the murder of millions of Christian”
That is not amusing. That is an embarrassingly stupid thing to say. Perhaps you should google “wiki guilt”. “Guilt is the state of being responsible for the commission of an offense.” How could someone today be responsible for something that happened many decades ago that they had absolutely no control over?

I would assume that “Catholic guilt” means that someone was so indoctrinated (brain-washed) with the catechism that they find it difficult to avoid feeling guilty about going against even something as stupid as the teaching against prevention of conception.

Posted by rover serton on Saturday, Sep 3, 2011 8:46 AM (EDT):

Actually, I donate to Methodist charities in both time and treasure. The tax deduction is definetly a plus. I belong to that group for the social club aspect, as I said, I would understand why an reformed “atheist” like Jennifer would join for that aspect.

My wife left catholisism because of how she was treated before we were married. Women hit a stained glass ceiling in your church, the sky is the limit in the UMC.

“Atheist Guilt”. That is funny. You are projecting your Catholisism. I live a guilt free life. Lenin and Stalin were atheists but didnt’ kill because of it. Unlike the mass murder by religionist because of religion.

Rover

Posted by con O sullivan on Saturday, Sep 3, 2011 7:53 AM (EDT):

rover serton, Catholics like everyone else pays their taxes, out of what they have left they give money to their Church, as for your Wife’s Catholic guilt, maybe listening to your attitude to Catholics has given the Lady this “Catholic Guilt. Maybe you should have “Atheist Guilt” over the muder of Millions of Christian done to death by your fellow Atheists Lenin and Stalin.

Posted by Nick on Friday, Sep 2, 2011 11:48 PM (EDT):

> “All Christians can do good since they are paid, by tax deductions, to do so.”

THat is risible and false.

When people donate money to their Church, they end up with LESS MONEY. They don’t get paid; on the opposite, THEY PAY. They they add “insult to injury” by volunteering their time.

Posted by rover serton on Friday, Sep 2, 2011 9:25 PM (EDT):

Adam Slide: you wrote “Why do atheists spend time on Christian blogs?”

It’s pretty simple. It is intersting EVERY time Jennifer blogs, she mentions she was an atheist. PZ Myers has pointed to her in his blog.

I enjoy (as an atheist) reading how an “atheist” is now doing good in her Catholic home. My Wife, converting to Methodist from Catholic, still has the Catholic guilt.

Personally, I would like to hear how an atheist converts to a religion unless it is just to be part of a social club. That I understand. Especially after this article. She still gets to help people but can POINT to a group of people that can do some good also.

All Christians can do good since they are paid, by tax deductions, to do so. I appreciate the good but at an incredible cost to the tax base.

I live in the lower penisula of Michigan, UP’ers call us Trolls (we live beneith the (mackinaw) bridge).

Rover.

Posted by Mike McCants on Friday, Sep 2, 2011 3:03 PM (EDT):

“aren’t you effectively just telling whomever might be listening, “I am very closed-minded when it comes to discussing ‘god’”?”

No, that would be stupid. Thank you for your condescension. What I am saying is that I have heard them all and rejected them all. Name one.

“that’s a very bad argument”

From Wikipedia: “A deductive argument asserts that the truth of the conclusion is a logical consequence of the premises.”

But, of course, since you have no premises worth discussing, you have no arguments worth discussing. Name one.

“I have had an atheist sneer”

An anecdote of one. How impressive. Let’s use one person’s attitude to generalize to a million people. How ridiculous.

“sneer at everyone who won’t vote Obama”

Do you support the anti-science positions of Perry and Bachmann? Or do you support evolution and human-caused global warming? Do you think that some god inserted a “soul” into humans some time in the last 50,000 years? That would be contrary to science. Our August was the hottest month ever recorded. The previous record was July. If our lake goes dry, Austin will be in trouble.

“the meaning is identical”

Are you allowed to be more specific? What do you think my “meaning” really is?

Posted by Sean on Friday, Sep 2, 2011 1:59 PM (EDT):

“have you ever heard of an atheist that said: ‘do not help people’, ‘do not love your neighbour’, ‘kill your babies’ or any other such a thing?” I have had an atheist sneer at my charitable contributions to charities; his rationale was that people did that sort fo thing only for a tax write-off (that one would still out the cash by performing an act of generosity seems to have been lost on him). Anyway, if the atheist’s point was not that one should stop helping people by giving to charities, what was it? To your other two examples: the same atheist is also inclined to sneer at everyone who won’t vote Obama and is rabidly pro-choice. The verbiage is different from what you used, but the meaning is identical.

Posted by David on Friday, Sep 2, 2011 12:02 PM (EDT):

“There are no assertions about the existence of a “god” that are worth discussing.” Again, this comment is highly ironic, hopefully you appreciate that, but also, aren’t you effectively just telling whomever might be listening, “I am very closed-minded when it comes to discussing ‘god’”?

“A valid argument ought to be based on “facts” or “evidence”.” - I assure, that is not correct (I’ve graded for classes on critical thinking at the university-level for the last few years, so you can trust me on that, but better yet, do some research and find out how to use these terms correctly).

“Since no religion actually has any “evidence”, no religion can construct an argument.” - Your premise is false and your conclusion doesn’t follow (IOW, that’s a very bad argument).

Posted by Mike McCants on Thursday, Sep 1, 2011 8:27 PM (EDT):

“there are no arguments when the topic is religion”

There are no assertions about the existence of a “god” that are worth discussing.

“how to construct a valid argument”

A valid argument ought to be based on “facts” or “evidence”. Since no religion actually has any “evidence”, no religion can construct an argument.

“angry about it for God-knows-what (they probably don’t) reason.”

Thanks for your Christian condescension.

“why are you reading and commenting on it”

I think that an opposing point of view should be expressed.

Posted by con O sullivan on Thursday, Sep 1, 2011 12:54 PM (EDT):

Mike McCants, If (as you say ) Jens piece is silly, why are you reading and commenting on it, should you not be reading the DailyKos or the New York Times two Atheist News papers, and you are losing your sense of Reasoning about Republicans, what is the Connection between the Republican Party and the Catholic Church. I am afraid you have been sitting too long out in the sun

Posted by David on Thursday, Sep 1, 2011 11:05 AM (EDT):

Atheists may well be relatively ‘educated,’ but what counts is quality and relevance of education, not quantity. And what would be relevant here would be some awareness of how to construct a valid argument (and hopefully, after that, even a *sound* argument), as opposed to simply venting hostile opinions. I would hope we would all be able to agree that the latter is really just nasty and pointless and makes the world a worse place.

Posted by David on Thursday, Sep 1, 2011 10:58 AM (EDT):

Hi Mike, I’m a sucker for a good troll, so here we go:
David: “he presumably insists that his students actually make real arguments”

Mike: “The topic is religion. There are no arguments. There are assertions for and against “wishful thinking”. The fundamental argument is “the absence of evidence is evidence for absence”.”

So, it that an argument you’re making? ...on the topic of religion? ...your conclusion being that there are no arguments when the topic is religion? ...and you don’t see a problem? (I’d have to say my original point stands.)

Posted by Mike McCants on Thursday, Sep 1, 2011 10:24 AM (EDT):

“One day last year”
As usual, this column is simply silly.

“This is so different from atheism.”
That’s simply stupid. The US Government runs a $1 trillion dollar debt and a large percentage of that is “charity”. CHIP, WIC, food stamps, SSI, SSDI, Medicaid, and funding for an enormous number of non-profits might all be considered “charity” in part or in entirety. More than half of all taxpayers pay no income taxes and most of them get refunds due to EIC and CTC.

“simply being part of a parish community”
A large social club. A club that spends only a very small part of its wealth on charity. What is the annual budget for this parish? Is there a church school? What is its budget? I’ll wager that the total income of all the parish members is many, many millions of dollars. What percentage is spent on charity? I think I prefer a charity that spends 90% of its funds on the desired goal.

“There are lots of similar groups in the secular world, of course”
Of course. How should the US Government be counted?

“When I was an atheist”
Playing the stupid “I used to be an atheist” card as usual. Such a silly attempt at “street cred”.

“it’s the overarching aim of everything else on the list”
Wait. I thought you were married with children. Shouldn’t your family come first? What is this “list”? “Bullet points” on a list? I think your number one priority is thinking up things to write a column about. You don’t actually have a day job, do you?

“churches have been synonymous with charity and service”
That was true when the church was the main authority in the life of the tribe. But now that job mainly falls to the government.

“hungry and lost in a strange place”
The Salvation Army comes to mind as the first place to go for a homeless person. They are properly set up for 24/7 services. And they can get you food stamps and other sources of government aid.

“by loving and serving others”
And why are you convinced that that serves a god? So silly.

“I looked at the stained glass windows, the twelve-foot oak doors”
and wondered how much money had been spent on pretty things and air conditioning that might have been better spent on charity.

And what about all those wonderful Muslim charities collecting money to educate their children to hate anyone of a different religion? They also know that they are serving their god.

And now our latest example - more money for FEMA disaster aid only if the budget is cut in some other place. What charity from Republicans!

Posted by Sean Adams on Wednesday, Aug 31, 2011 11:10 PM (EDT):

What a wonderful and insightful post! I just found a new blog to subscribe to!

God Bless,
Sean
http://myepiphanytoday.blogspot.com/

Posted by Mike McCants on Wednesday, Aug 31, 2011 9:45 PM (EDT):

“he presumably insists that his students actually make real arguments”

The topic is religion. There are no arguments. There are assertions for and against “wishful thinking”. The fundamental argument is “the absence of evidence is evidence for absence”.

“we are clueless on how to articulate what we have experienced”

How could “what you have experienced” possibly be used in an argument?

“Why exactly do you think our theology is bunk?”

Every theology is bunk. If there’s really no basis for any theology, it has to be bunk. And the basis for every theology is “wishful thinking” (better known as delusion).

“Using data from a large survey conducted in 2000, I investigate differences in charitable giving and volunteering between secular and religious people.”

Perhaps things are changing? Perhaps the religious were older in 2000 and had more time and money available to give?

“I believe in an eternal heaven and an eternal hell and I don’t want to see anyone go to hell.”

Hilarious.

“why helping is important to an atheist in the first place?”

Why don’t you ask: Why is living important to an atheist?

“The take home message is that the religious students do a better job of internalizing and articulating arguments supporting unbelief than the atheists do for arguments supporting belief.”

That makes good sense - there are no arguments supporting belief.

“Catholicism is where the total truth is.”

I guess you expect me to take your word for that.

“Could anyone who calls themselves an atheist ever give selflessly to any cause?”

Hilarious. Who gets to define “selflessly”?

“I assume you would not write in a forum where you believed the people were too crazy to understand you.”

Such a silly assumption.

Posted by Pam on Wednesday, Aug 31, 2011 9:32 PM (EDT):

Thanks for sharing your “Aha!!” moment with us. To add to what Jared said, Mother Theresa said the difference between social work and Christian work was that social work is done “for something” and Christian work is done “to someone (Christ)”. And just from the way this impacted you, I have to smile because who really helped who? God’s ways are so AWESOME! You tried to help and YOU got the gift! Although some people have interpreted the article as a putdown of people who don’t believe in God, it sounds to me more like an invitation to discover something awesome - deserving of a second look from people like Bob who say they were once believers.

Posted by sleepyhead on Wednesday, Aug 31, 2011 6:45 PM (EDT):

@joe wetterling
.....
i used to feel the same way… but inecer thought “I’d love to not have to be Catholic.”
.....
i dont like to think of it but when i was married i made decisions based on the kids were sick, dad was sick, i had to go to work, i was too tired, the car was low on gas, i didnt… i dont… i wasnt… i cant…
.....
now i wish i hadnt - i wish i had felt more catholic… i didnt think that was possible… now i know it to be true…

Posted by Scot on Wednesday, Aug 31, 2011 1:35 PM (EDT):

Catholics believe in original sin that must be redeemed by service to God, which means they are doing things they themselves would not think to do if there was not God to tell them.

What happened to common human decency?

Posted by Maggie on Wednesday, Aug 31, 2011 11:55 AM (EDT):

Welcome home Jennifer. Christ washed the feet of the Apostles as a way to show them that they needed to serve others. Christ’s greatest example of love was giving His life that we may have eternal life. We were made to love and love is self sacrifice. I’ve always known that to be true royalty was to live serve others not live to have others serve you. Since at Baptism we become Princes and Princesses because we are the adopted children of God, we then must use our lives to serve others. I forget who wrote this but it is a wonderful quote “God is love. Yield we now to Love.”

Posted by con O sullivan on Wednesday, Aug 31, 2011 10:41 AM (EDT):

The Gemima and Bob Train has left the Station

Posted by Joe Wetterling on Wednesday, Aug 31, 2011 10:00 AM (EDT):

I find one particular argument interesting - that Catholics are Catholics because it makes them feel good, or that they picked God because God agrees with them. I’ve heard that quite a few times, leveled against Jennifer, myself, and others.

Has anyone that makes that argument actually tried being Catholic? It isn’t all smugness, or joy, or charity. It is difficult.

Really difficult.

I’d love to not have to be Catholic. I’d love the intellectual arguments against it to actually be convincing. There are a lot of little (and some large) frustrations that I wouldn’t have to put up with if God wasn’t real. I wouldn’t have to live a Christian life in this situation or that, unless it really felt good to.

I wish it was the “god club” that many people make it out to be. I could pay my dues on Sunday, use my membership to feel good about myself when I wished, and ignore it when I wanted to do something else. I could just flip that switch on and off.

But God isn’t a switch to flip or a club to join. He isn’t a guy up there watching us and laying down law, either; that’s just what words like “he” paint in our imaginations. God is. And truth trumps pleasure and convenience every time. It must.

Posted by sleepyhead on Wednesday, Aug 31, 2011 2:53 AM (EDT):

Posted by ls on Tuesday, Aug 30, 2011 6:57 PM (EDT):
“sleeepyhead, if they’re giving when nobody else sees then why would they need to post about it anywhere?”
.....
because theyre not getting appreciated anywhere else… like catholics do… like baptists do… like any other group does… ignored too often, too long, every group has some who wants - not personal, otherwise theyll put “we did it” on pages for poor/hungry/homeless/etc - thanks…
.....
i thank you…

Posted by Maggie McConnell on Wednesday, Aug 31, 2011 2:34 AM (EDT):

Oh here is bob again!” he is addicting to trolling Catholic websites. bob, it’s “Schizo Maggie.” how are you? I am still praying for you and await the day the Light comes into your life and gives you the joy and peace of faith. Dominus Vobiscum.

Posted by Susan on Tuesday, Aug 30, 2011 9:34 PM (EDT):

Jemima, I’m so happy to see you here and thank you for your interest in Catholicism and the love of our Lord. I know that you are not a believer, but I believe you allow for even a small possibility that there is a God. I assume you would not write in a forum where you believed the people were too crazy to understand you. Allowing for the fact that you don’t find us crazy, just wrong, means that on some level you recognize that it is possible that God exists and that intelligent people can believe in the God of the bible who created us, ordered our world and continues to care for us. I am excited to think that someone who thinks deeply and is so passionate about the subject, and obviously intelligent, may someday come to be a believer. We could certainly use your enthusiasm! I’d like to invite you to come and see! Stop by anytime at a Catholic church and pop in and visit. If your near Venice, Ca stop by Saint Mark. We’d love to have you. There is no more zealous a person for Christ than a convert with such passion! I pray for you that these conversations here will plant the seed for your conversion and hope to meet you someday; if not in this life in the next. God bless you, Jemima.

Posted by ls on Tuesday, Aug 30, 2011 7:57 PM (EDT):

sleeepyhead, if they’re giving when nobody else sees then why would they need to post about it anywhere?

Posted by Steven on Tuesday, Aug 30, 2011 7:41 PM (EDT):

Thankfully the St. Vincent de Paul workers Ms. Fulwiller wrote about were nothing like those (I’ll let everybody fill in their own adjectives) workers recollected by Frank McCourt in Angela’s Ashes when they needed their “services” in Limmerick Ireland during the Depression.
While we should all be grateful for the level of compassionate Catholic and other religious social-services, let’s also not lose sight of the fact that many good God-fearing, God-loving people work for a government service agency. I’ve noticed a rising trend lately towards giving people who perform jobs similar to those performed in the public sector many praises to the hilt whereas there’s less and less of the same praise given to those working in the public sector.
I have full confidence Ms. Fulwiller isn’t in league with the forces behind the media-wide attempts (especially within the far more conservative, practically rightist, media, such as Faux “news” chunnel ... and that bunch will do almost anything, use almost anybody, even the good services of genuinely compassionate religious organizations providing social services, to undermine the public sector ... and why, to further reduce the rolls of public employees.
But guess what: that’ll only put more pressure on the religious based social service provider organizations when they are already feeling more than strapped for the financial resources they need. But the fat cats behind this move won’t be done; not until they’ve eliminated tax-deductions for non-profit charities and religious organizations, especially the latter.
Amazing to hear all the “We love God” social/religious conservatives who haven’t a clue as to what some of their “leaders” are doing to undermine what they hold dearest: Their Churches and their church-backed or organized social services.
Just an FYI. I write from experience, bitter sad, experience of dealing with the more tightisted conservatives, and they are no friends of social conservatives in the least bit. They’re cold as Dante’s bottom-most level of hell when it comes to money and social service.

Posted by mk on Tuesday, Aug 30, 2011 6:02 PM (EDT):

Bob,

He assumes we’re all Hitler. Unfortunately, Hitler was a Catholic in good standing the the Roman Catholic Church, never having been excommunicated.

Throwing that statement out every time you comment at NCR will not make it any more true. You obviously have no idea what excommunication means, you have been shown dozens of times that Hitler not only wasn’t Catholic, but hated Catholics and yet you persist in making the claim over and over. I’m beginning to think that that is the only thing you know how to say. Seriously, Hitler was NOT in good standing with the Catholic Church. Period. Repeating it will not make it so. Just for fun, try something new.

Posted by PS on Tuesday, Aug 30, 2011 6:00 PM (EDT):

First of all I would like to thank you Ms. Fulwiler for showing an amazing strength of character. Remember, u didn’t have to do this. You even spoke of Christian faith better than I would & I am a born Christian. Only other thing I would like say is this: “I thought this was a EWTN post. I have browsed the non-believer’s posts but after reading some I become so unnerved from what I read. So much hate for God & Christians, alot of their photo’s even scare me, to a point I have to quickly leave the posts. I refuse to click onto those posts now & refuse to waste my time on commenting. Still, as I browsed a few sites I tried diligently to find a Christian making any comments on their posts & could not find one…thanks

Posted by mk on Tuesday, Aug 30, 2011 5:50 PM (EDT):

Adam,

Ooops…sorry about that. I read your comment as if you were an atheist! Mea Culpa!

Posted by Abigail on Tuesday, Aug 30, 2011 5:48 PM (EDT):

Jen articulated her beliefs about serving others as part of her Catholic identity. I have a question for those who identify themselves as atheists: why do you serve others? As one who comes from a Christ-centered worldview, I am not aware of why atheists believe in serving others. Thanks!

Posted by Mary Blomberg on Tuesday, Aug 30, 2011 5:12 PM (EDT):

My son was in an interview for major scholarship money when he was asked about his service to community. He said he did not do much. When he told me about, I asked him why he did not mention his eight years of helping teach special Olympic athletes to swim, his four summers of teaching
migrant children to swim a d other work he had done. He said that wasn’t volunteer, it was just things our family always does. I told him that that was not how much of the world thinks a d to mention it next time someone asks. He ended getting full tuition, but not whole meal deal of tuition, books, fees, and room and board

Posted by sleepyhead on Tuesday, Aug 30, 2011 4:50 PM (EDT):

thank you… i am proud of ncregister to attract such dedicated atheists… theres nowhere else for them to post… at least nowhere i know of… for giving when nobody else looks… for helping when nobody else expects them to…
thank you….

Posted by ls on Tuesday, Aug 30, 2011 3:42 PM (EDT):

Great article. Could anyone who calls themselves an atheist ever give selflessly to any cause? I mean, really? Believers in God know the principle of selfless giving and unconditional love. That’s what the atheist can never understand because they don’t believe in grace. It’s inescapable. When you give of yourself because you love the one who died for you, then you are truly giving of yourself.

Posted by Chris Adams on Tuesday, Aug 30, 2011 2:05 PM (EDT):

Thanks for the article. I guess some of the atheists missed the premise of your article.

Godspeed,
@chrisorbuster

Posted by con O sullivan on Tuesday, Aug 30, 2011 1:28 PM (EDT):

Bob Thanks for giving us all a laugh. Hitler in god standing with the Catholic Church, since he murdered 3,000,000 Catholics, i suppose Stalin, Lenin and Chairman Mao were also in good standing with the Church, keep amusing us.

Posted by Giancarlo on Tuesday, Aug 30, 2011 12:57 PM (EDT):

My friends,

You are wasting time arguing back and forth with Jemima. Her conversion will only come with our prayers. There is no argument that we can put forth to suddenly change her mind. Jennifer’s conversion came because of someone’s prayers and our Heavenly Father’s will and her own.

Posted by David on Tuesday, Aug 30, 2011 12:47 PM (EDT):

“It’s called trolling. Get everyone all worked up, keep going back to your computer to see who else responded to you and write some more and then pretty soon (on a Catholic blog anyway) you get someone talking about pedophile priests…” - or how Hitler was a “Catholic in good standing” - LOL!
I get the not throwing pearls before swine thing, in principle, but what if the apparent troll is actually a hungry God-seeker? How do we know? Most people really and sincerely are just badly misinformed about certain things, right?...

Posted by Romulus on Tuesday, Aug 30, 2011 12:04 PM (EDT):

“Romulus…assumes we’re all Hitler.”

Huh? Bob, just how far into my post did you read before leaping to the conclusion you wanted?

This is so typical of the intellectual dishonesty so many atheists bring to the debate: replace your opponent with a ludicrous and offensive caricature so he can be dismissed without the trouble of actually considering what he has to say. Your approach (if one may even call it that) to this topic is one of denial and substitution. People of faith frequently commit the same fault because they prefer the tame and cuddly god of their sentiments, to an awesome Being whose encounter changes everything. In this you’re no different from the buyers of pastel piety on sale at the cheesier sort of religious goods store. It’s a funny old world.

Posted by Gail F on Tuesday, Aug 30, 2011 10:43 AM (EDT):

Bob: The fact that you personally can’t conceive of a life without service comes down to one thing only: What you personally find meaningful. That is the problem with atheists arguing for charity: There is no overall reason an atheist should be charitable, other than his or her simply finding it meaningful. But atheism’s tenet (if there is one, which is arguable) is that each person should do what he or she finds meaningful—which may NEVER including helping anyone, anywhere, at any time. Hence the recent plethora of advertisements for charity based on “how much you get out of” volunteering or giving, or how much better your community will be if you do.

There is plenty of documented evidence that religious people (including Jews, Muslims, and people who belong to other religions) give FAR more in both money and time to charities both religious and secular. Arthur Brooks’s book “Who Really Cares” lays out every statistic that you could want. The vast majority of religious people are politically conservative, but his review of published studies shows that politically liberal religious people (though far in the minority) give nearly as much as the conservative ones. It is religion that makes the difference, and Jennifer’s essay is a great explanation of why: religions teach the obligation to help. Some (like Christianity) teach it as a constant obligation, while others teach it as more limited (at certain times of the year, say, or limited to certain populations), but they ALL teach it. Atheists do not have a creed or a set of beliefs; they are united only in what they don’t believe. So it is no surprise that, as a group, they give less and volunteer less. And yes, this is a measurable fact, whatever particular individuals do.

Posted by Beth on Tuesday, Aug 30, 2011 10:34 AM (EDT):

I see the same goodness in all who serve those in need. Whether they are atheist or Catholic. I sometimes feel that the non-religious people in my life are alot closer to God than the religious. I know that is ironic.

JohnyZoomZoom says religious people understand atheist arguments while atheists don’t understand religious ones. I’d like to see a reference for that since all atheists started out as religious people. Of COURSE we understand religion…we once WERE religious.

Posted by bob on Tuesday, Aug 30, 2011 9:48 AM (EDT):

Romulus has the standard, offensive view of atheists that many Christian bigots do. He assumes we’re all Hitler. Unfortunately, Hitler was a Catholic in good standing the the Roman Catholic Church, never having been excommunicated. In his “Table Talk” diaries, he mentions a discussion he had with the Archbishop of Cologne, pointing out that he was merely doing to the Jews what the Church had done to them for a thousand years. Ayn Rand was an atheist and she was hardly a communist, being the beloved philosopher of the Tea Party, which is strongly Christian. So if you’re going to attack atheism, don’t do it based on the bigotry of ignorance.

Posted by Adam Slide on Tuesday, Aug 30, 2011 9:47 AM (EDT):

mk, there is no irony because as a Christian I have a reason for debating atheists. I believe in an eternal heaven and an eternal hell and I don’t want to see anyone go to hell. I believe that the only way anyone will find true happiness in life is if they know, love and serve God. So I have a *reason* to explain my beliefs to those who don’t believe, and therefore it’s not a waste of time from my perspective.

So my question remains unanswered. Why do atheists spend time on Christian blogs? Maybe they just enjoy debating. Maybe they just want to prove that they’re right and Christians are wrong. Maybe they want to convert Christians into atheists because they think they’ll be happier as atheists. I don’t really know, that’s why I’m genuinely interested in the reasons why. Personally, if I were an atheist I wouldn’t waste my time.

Posted by bob on Tuesday, Aug 30, 2011 9:40 AM (EDT):

While I commend you for your service, as an atheist, I can’t conceive of a life lived without service. I’ve been a hospice volunteer caring for dying children, a volunteer with the Coast Guard Auxiliary in NYC after 9/11 and am now a volunteer First Responder with an ambulance crew, preparing to take an EMT course. It’s part of who I am. It has nothing to do with religion at all. I think the reason it’s ‘easy’ to find help at a church is that these are community based organizations with large populations, whereas atheists don’t have the same kind of infrastructure apart from secular community organizations. There are about as many atheists as there are Jews. But because of their smaller population, Jews don’t have the same kind of hospitals, soup kitchens, etc. that Christians do. So your view is testable, and it doesn’t seem to bear scrutiny, based on evidence.

Posted by mk on Tuesday, Aug 30, 2011 9:05 AM (EDT):

Adam Slide,

You are too funny. You come on a Catholic Blog to say that you think atheists who come on Catholic Blogs to debate are foolish and wasting their time. And you don’t even see the irony???? LOL…thanks for my laugh for the day.

Posted by mk on Tuesday, Aug 30, 2011 9:03 AM (EDT):

Jemima,

Is this what you were looking for? Measurable proof that people of Faith give more than those who do not believe?

http://www.hoover.org/publications/policy-review/article/6577

Posted by Denita on Tuesday, Aug 30, 2011 9:03 AM (EDT):

I want to help others because God wants me to, not because someone says it’ll make me feel better. I don’t want it to be a mere “obligation.”

Posted by TeaPot562 on Tuesday, Aug 30, 2011 1:49 AM (EDT):

Many hospitals have been founded by Catholic religious orders; I am aware of some hospitals established by Lutherans, Episcopalians and Jewish communities; but I am unaware of any hospitals or clinics founded on endowments given by avowed atheists. Are there such?
Btw, I have donated more than 130 pints of blood over the 60 years since I became eligible.
TeaPot562

Posted by JohnnyZoom on Tuesday, Aug 30, 2011 12:49 AM (EDT):

Proverbs 26:4 in two different translations:

NAE: Do not respond to the foolish according to his folly, lest you become like him.

Internetz: Don’t feed the trolls.

Mea culpa. Rock on Jennifer.

Posted by Pete on Monday, Aug 29, 2011 11:16 PM (EDT):

Jemima - what fun! you’ve stirred up the folks!! Your point!

Folks- it’s ok, you really DON’T have to respond to Jemima. It’s called trolling. Get everyone all worked up, keep going back to your computer to see who else responded to you and write some more and then pretty soon (on a Catholic blog anyway) you get someone talking about pedophile priests. Why do we continue to fall for it everytime?

God Bless you Jemima! He believes in you and you are never alone!

Posted by Adam Slide on Monday, Aug 29, 2011 9:15 PM (EDT):

Jemima, why are you wasting your time arguing with a bunch of crazy idiots who believe in a made up religion and a non-existent god??? I’ll never understand why athiests waste the short time they have on this earth arguing about non-existent, made up things..

Posted by John Thrippleton on Monday, Aug 29, 2011 8:29 PM (EDT):

Jemima,

Again you show your ignorance. I don’t view Hinduism as bunk. There is some truth in Hinduism. Catholicism is where the total truth is.

I don’t jump down the theist rabbit hole anymore than you jump down the atheist one.

How condescending you are about theologists. Just because you aren’t interested in studying theology doesn’t mean the rest of us are too stupid to study what you are interested in. Your lack of ability to make a valid argument is telling that you wouldn’t be able to hack it in philosophy or theology.

I applaud you for at least reading some theology, but before telling us what we believe, read the Catechism of the Catholic Church. At least that way you might have a clue as to what the Catholic Church actually teaches.

There are many examples of how Christian organizations do more good in this world than others. Most of the orphanages in the world are run by Catholic organizations, Catholic Charities is heavily relied upon in this country to coordinate and provide foster care services, Catholic organizations largely provide assistance to the homeless, the Knights of Columbus provide assistance to the mentally handicapped, disaster stricken, and many many other causes.

Yes there are secular charities that provide these services, but they are greatly outnumbered by christian ones (and I’ve only mentioned Catholic ones….there are many many other non-Catholic Christian ones). Besides, you still haven’t addressed Jennifer’s main point that charity is integrated in the Christian lifestyle, and is not integrated in the atheist/secular lifestyle.

You speak from presumptions and assumptions…how bout you take some thing given and proceed from that?

Posted by Elizabeth K. on Monday, Aug 29, 2011 8:14 PM (EDT):

Can we please stop feeding the Cole-troll? Puh-lease?

Posted by JohnnyZoom on Monday, Aug 29, 2011 8:04 PM (EDT):

“if you are debating Catholicism in a theology course run by a Catholic who writes books called Heaven the Heart’s Deepest Longing and about ‘the culture war’, who appears in videos called ‘Kreeft v Atheist’ that are actually just lectures with no atheist present, yes, amazingly Catholics may have an advantage in *his own account* of what happened.”

I agree 100%. Except that is not what happens in these debates. You have misunderstood the entire premise. You have it backwards.

The Catholics (and other believers) do not argue for belief. They argue for *un*belief. It is the atheists/unbelievers who argue for belief. The whole point of the exercise is to argue a point you do not personally believe in. It is a very useful educational tactic in many settings other than this too, actually.

Now one would think that having the unbelievers taught by (by your implicit admission) one of the most prolific apologetic professors around as to what arguments for belief are, would be pretty well versed in what those arguments are, whether or not they agreed with them. But when put up against believers who argue for *un*belief, the believers, the *un*belief position, win the debate hands down.

The take home message is that the religious students do a better job of internalizing and articulating arguments supporting unbelief than the atheists do for arguments supporting belief. Way better apparently. Your mention of Kreeft’s biases would favor the students arguing the position he agrees with, yet they get whupped.

Assuming no mental health issues, there is no obstacle for either side’s students to understand the issues, other than those the students bring themselves. (Again if one says Kreeft himself is the obstacle, it would favor the atheists arguing for belief, but they get hammered.) The atheists simply don’t internalize the arguments for belief.

Allowing for the caveat that this is a generalization (albeit a good one), it is a great exercise to speculate why that is. But that is for another day. I wish you had read and understood the premise of my post, you missed the boat completely with it, and everything you replied with, while perhaps having its own internal merits, was irrelevant. Only that, it was strikingly analogous to what happens to atheists when challenged with theistic arguments. The arguments do not even stick, rather they get misinterpreted completely.

Just for the record, this is a discusson about his longstanding experience with students and the learning process. I did not with to imply you in particular did not understand theistic arguments. I grant you might understand them well and have rejected them or hold them in at least considerable skepticism. But my point is, many or most atheists have only a straw man’s picture of religious belief. This in itself is beyond dispute. It proves nothing about God of course, but it does help understand why so many of the comments here make little sense, but their posters are beyond redemption to even see that.

*Intellectual* redemption, at least.

Posted by con O sullivan on Monday, Aug 29, 2011 7:26 PM (EDT):

Jemima Cole Well Catholic blogs must be far more entertaining than reading The Daily Beast, or the Daily Kos, or even The New York times, that you keep reading and writing, I wonder what you studied in College, I suppose you Majored in Communism /Atheism and I suppose you studied the History of the Anti Catholics Bigots The Know Nothings, and who is your favourite person in History?, well let me quess, I presume Mr Lenin. There are not too many role models in Atheism is there well you have Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Dawkins Hitchins, PZ Myers, and really I am scraping the bottem of the Barrel after that.

Posted by Romulus on Monday, Aug 29, 2011 6:40 PM (EDT):

Jemima, sometimes it takes a billion Catholics praying simply to move one atheist to donate that single pint. Because we need to be praying. And because the atheist really needs to donate that pint.

Forgive me if I’ve missed it, but may one ask why helping is important to an atheist in the first place? Catholics—who’re under no illusions about their power “to make the world a better place”—engage in charity not to eliminate poverty or sickness or ignorance, but to serve Jesus, who’s taught us he’s present in a special way among the poor. On our good days we’re not too sentimental about our chances to perfect the world; whatever social advance we achieve is a happy byproduct; it’s not the object that motivates us.

What I have to ask however, is what motivates the atheist? Do you view the perfectibility of the world as a realistic human project? In view of the history of the past hundred years or so, can you point to any net success in this direction? Does the eradication of smallpox compensate for, say, Hitler, Stalin, and Mao? Does it compensate for the evil and anger every one of us still nurses in his or her own heart?

Shall I tell you what I think? I think most atheists are people who desire good things for others, notwithstanding their existential pessimism about its having any meaning, “sub specie aeternitatis”. I think it is interesting to consider why they should do so—don’t you? I think God’s humility is such that he bestows grace sometimes with no expectation of its being acknowledged or even noticed. I think the need he takes upon himself in solidarity with the poor constitutes the great hope for unbelievers, who thereby gain the chance to respond to grace and to serve him, without violating their disordered consciences with theist notions they’re unable to entertain.

Gjuro:
On one side:“do not hit your little superstition stories unto us atheists”, “do not try to spend everybody’s (taxpayer’s) money on your superstitious services”, “keep away from public schools with your superstition”
On the other: “live and let live”...
The problem is obviously hypocrisy, I’d say.

Posted by David on Monday, Aug 29, 2011 5:56 PM (EDT):

“Just buy him a sandwich, like the rest of us do.” - And Jemima might well have added: “and if he says something you don’t like, rudely berate him like the rest of us do…” (Note: “the rest of us” presumably refers to the minority of people who are atheists, and quite likely angry about it for God-knows-what (they probably don’t) reason.)

Posted by Gjuro on Monday, Aug 29, 2011 5:56 PM (EDT):

dear believers,

have you ever heard of an atheist that said: “do not help people”, “do not love your neighbour”, “kill your babies” or any other such a thing? probably not…

however, you probably have heard an atheist saying: “do not hit your little superstition stories unto us atheists”, “do not try to spend everybody’s (taxpayer’s) money on your superstitious services”, “keep away from public schools with your superstition”, “live and let live”...

what is the problem with that?

Posted by Jackie Varicak on Monday, Aug 29, 2011 5:54 PM (EDT):

Love the post. And love the fact that it is tugging at the hearts of atheists, especially Ms. Jemima who seems to be taking it kicking and screaming but that’s ok. It’s nice to see her reading this blog because the seeds are being planted. To you atheists, keep reading. I’ll be praying for you whether you like it or not, believe in it or not, or even if you think I’m a complete idiot for doing it!

Posted by David on Monday, Aug 29, 2011 5:41 PM (EDT):

“The Courtier’s Defense - how dare you say the Emperor has no clothes when you haven’t studied invisible stitching techniques.”
Strangely enough, this ‘argument’ came from the person who had the temerity to inform us that Peter Kreeft’s arguments aren’t ‘good.’ Ironic, that.
Or how about this one: “It’s intense selfishness, the need to invoke *the creator of the universe and his natural order* to justify buying a homeless person a sandwich. Just buy him a sandwich, like the rest of us do.” Is that a ‘good’ argument too? Is it even an argument? If so, what makes it an argument? What makes it ‘good’?
One reason Jemima would not like Kreeft’s class is that he presumably insists that his students actually make real arguments - simply spewing opinions presumably wouldn’t get a passing grade.

Posted by Lee on Monday, Aug 29, 2011 5:31 PM (EDT):

I just came across this blog, and I think it is wonderful. I am not Catholic, and am kind of lazy at being observant in the religion of which I am a member, but I do believe in strongly in the tenants of my faith.

Anyhow… Referring to one of the commentors:

I am a little mystified as to why one would read a blog like that that is CLEARLY about one person’s personal Road to Damascus and the journey thereafter. YOU have to go out of your way to read this blog; Ms. Fulwiler does not stop in your home and read her blog to you. So don’t get annoyed with her expressing her joy and wonderment, and other emotions, of her post-conversion life. You are, of course, entitled to you opinion, and you do have the freedom to epxress it here. I just don’t understand WHY you bother…? And it seems a little strange that you let yourself get SOOOOO annoyed by what Ms. Fulwiler writes. Life is too short to go around in a high dudgeon.

I do hope you keep reading the blog—maybe some of the writer will rub off on you.

Posted by Marianna Reilly on Monday, Aug 29, 2011 5:31 PM (EDT):

Wow, this is such a perfect article! You’ve really hit upon what makes Catholic service so meaningful and UNIQUE—the fact that it is universal. You are practically echoing the mission of Catholic Charities, which is to serve those of all religions, or no religion, just because it is part of who we are as Catholics. http://www.catholiccharitiesny.org/about-us/vision/

Service to others is not about “being nice” or getting points for doing good things, or like you said “checking off a box”—it is about adopting an identity as a servant (the true image of God). Cheers for some great writing!

Posted by Sean on Monday, Aug 29, 2011 5:29 PM (EDT):

“What is the meaning of life?” To know, love and serve God. And how do we do that? The short answer is, by loving and serving others. That’s the second commandment. The primary way to serve God is to obey His commandments and adhere to His creed—e.g. we owe Him a form of worship that primarily honors Him and that He approves of. The first three commandments give primacy to loving, serving, and obeying God directy; the remaining seven are about our relations with our neighbors. If we shortcut the process and go straight to honoring God by loving and serving our neighbors, we will inevitably fall into sheer activism. Martha’s activity in the house was an important thing, but Mary’s contemplative focus directly on our Lord was the one thing needful and had pride of place (Luke 10:42).

Posted by Christi on Monday, Aug 29, 2011 5:11 PM (EDT):

Great post Jen, as usual! Having many loved ones who are life-long atheists or have lost their faith, seeing comments such as Jemima’s is a reminder of the need to pray for all nonbelievers. Personally having been close friends with atheists for years, I do know that Jen’s world view as an atheist matches the mindset of many life-long atheists. So, the comment from Jemima that Jen comes “across as the most rubbish atheist ever” is evidence of how difficult it is for an atheist to understand how someone with Jen’s faith formerly had no faith. The effort you put into this writing is a blessing to so many Jen, thank you!

Posted by Jessica on Monday, Aug 29, 2011 5:07 PM (EDT):

“All of them boil down to ‘look, God agrees with me!’. It’s an ego trip, something that enables her to do more of what she was doing anyway… It’s intense selfishness.”

I would offer a challenge to both the Christians and to Jemima. To Christians, I would remind them that we are trying to become saints, and I would ask how many of the canonized saints wrote about what they did and why it was good?

To Jemima, you ask good questions and bring a challenge that Christians need. Try to be patient, just because we are clueless on how to articulate what we have experienced, doesn’t mean that what the Catholic Church teaches is untrue.

Posted by JoAnna on Monday, Aug 29, 2011 5:01 PM (EDT):

Tina, that’s a great idea! I’ll add my prayers to yours.

Posted by Jemima Cole on Monday, Aug 29, 2011 4:58 PM (EDT):

“Only if they are not familiar with the books, and the arguments for their merit. Which was my point, and Kreeft’s, that often one side simply hasn’t prepared, or won’t prepare, for the debate.”

The Courtier’s Defense - how dare you say the Emperor has no clothes when you haven’t studied invisible stitching techniques.

It’s this simple: Kreeft thinks evolution is a random process and that it says life evolved by ‘chance’. So I may not have read every book on the subject of theology, but at least I’ve read *some*. This is not even a double standard - you’re demanding that I have intricate knowledge of all Catholic gobbledegook, but hold up as an authority someone who wouldn’t pass a high school science test. To use the Kreeft Technique and switching things around, the equivalent to ‘evolution says things evolved by chance’ is me going ‘Catholicism, that’s the one with Krishna, isn’t it?’. Although see below, because it seems Kreeft’s confused on that one, too.

“Indeed, this reinforces his point. From Kreeft’s example, some actually sitting in on his class do the same.”

Gosh, there are some inattentive students in undergraduate philosophy courses? I had no idea.

“many comboxers, ostensibly arguing against points made by the staff here, actually end up supporting those same arguments. The staff must write tight stuff.”

Yes. Perhaps before you try to demonstrate your amazing prowess with ‘the logic’, you might want to practice at home. I’ll spell it out: if you are debating Catholicism in a theology course run by a Catholic who writes books called Heaven the Heart’s Deepest Longing and about ‘the culture war’, who appears in videos called ‘Kreeft v Atheist’ that are actually just lectures with no atheist present, yes, amazingly Catholics may have an advantage in *his own account* of what happened.

Here’s an example of Kreeft’s logic:

“Atheism is cheap on people, because it snobbishly says nine out of ten people through history have been wrong about God and have had a lie at the core of their hearts.”

Now, if I’d ended up in his class, I’d have raised my hand at this point and asked him whether he believed those ‘nine out of ten’ all believed in the same thing. Because, of course, nine out of ten people throughout history were not Catholics. Nine out of ten people *since Christ* have not been Catholics, barely half of the world’s population *now* are even monotheists. Nine out of ten people in the Bible Belt of America are not Christians.

Even buying the idea that the existence of God can be decided democratically, the idea that all people who believe in gods believe in the same thing Catholicism teaches is, in fact, one of most heretical things a Catholic can believe.

*Catholicism*, in fact, is the belief system that demands that nine out of ten people have a ‘lie at the core of their hearts’. Kreeft is also a convert (from Calvinism), so he presumably believes *he* used to have a lie at the core of his own heart.

Atheists don’t think gods are lies, not exactly, they just it’s all a bit silly.

So that’s a rubbish argument you can knock over in about ten seconds, without needing to read City of God. I’ve spent about an hour looking at various videos and arguments and statements from Kreeft ... I feel I wasted that hour, and don’t feel the need to waste any more.

Posted by Tina on Monday, Aug 29, 2011 4:31 PM (EDT):

Several friends and I have been praying fervently for Jemina to continue posting so that she will remain part of the conversation until she eventually caves and converts. Prayer works (proven by her continued posting. She doesn’t even realize she can’t stay away due to the prayers for her)! It’s only a matter of time…..

Posted by Jemima Cole on Monday, Aug 29, 2011 4:05 PM (EDT):

“I thing your obsession”

Think? I’m going to guess ‘think’.

It’s a conversion blog, it’s Jennifer comparing her ‘atheist’ days (she does come across as the most rubbish atheist ever), and where she is now. And the first few comments were all ‘I can’t wait for the atheists to show up’ and guesses as to what we’d say. But they’re things no atheist has or would say. So, you know, if you don’t want atheists stinking up the joint, don’t send us invites.

Again, the Ayn Rand line makes the point I just couldn’t get into that head of yours - not believing in X doesn’t mean we believe Y. The fact that in the Better Person thread, you said (about fifty times) that atheists were all like Lenin, and now here we’re all like Ayn Rand makes that point. Ayn Rand and Lenin are ... not the same.

I am not remotely troubled by the thought that non-atheists do some good in the world. Why would I be?

There is a variant on Pascal’s Wager which is not an attempt to trick God, but is basically ‘live a good life anyway, and Christianity’s a good stab at defining a good life’. That makes sense. It’s a flawed argument, and presumably as people here know all the arguments already, I don’t need to explain why, but you look at the effect. Does more good get done? Almost certainly.

Posted by JohnnyZoom on Monday, Aug 29, 2011 3:59 PM (EDT):

“The people who don’t give a toss about Harry Potter are at a huge disadvantage when they try to make a case for why the books are so good.”

Only if they are not familiar with the books, and the arguments for their merit. Which was my point, and Kreeft’s, that often one side simply hasn’t prepared, or won’t prepare, for the debate.

“So therefore Harry Potter exists, right?”

I don’t know what this says about Potter’s fictionality or not. Your own example was concerning the merits of the books.

“this atheist, at least, would have steered clear of [Kreeft’s] class”

Indeed, this reinforces his point. From Kreeft’s example, some actually sitting in on his class do the same.

The Register lately won a lot of blogging and publishing awards. It is easy to see why when, among other reasons, many comboxers, ostensibly arguing against points made by the staff here, actually end up supporting those same arguments. The staff must write tight stuff. Keep up the good work.

... are not exactly good ones. I don’t just mean philosophically, although, you know, while we’re down the rabbit hole, the Kalam argument is just downright foolish, and boils down to ‘there’s no such thing as sharks, and I know this because a shark told me’. And then ‘not chance’ ... seriously? There are still people who think ‘evolution is random’?

... but I mean *good* ones. None of them are about being good. As various theologians have pointed out, yeah, part a sea, make a donkey talk ... so what? It doesn’t make you a moral authority. Kreeft converted to Catholicism because he believed its claim to apostolic succession. Not because, say, it was an engine for good in the world. The two things don’t follow, and only one of them is Catholicism’s killer app. And that’s all I’m saying. The way to win an argument with an atheist is to say ‘our church fed more people today than you did’. Not ‘If something exists, there must exist what it takes for that thing to exist’.

Posted by con O sullivan on Monday, Aug 29, 2011 3:41 PM (EDT):

Jemima Cole. I thing your obsession with Catholics and Catholic blogs is weird, Very strange indeed

Posted by Jemima Cole on Monday, Aug 29, 2011 3:11 PM (EDT):

“Thus the debate bloodbath.”

OK. Now let’s do what you haven’t done and think about that.

I divide a class up into Harry Potter fans and people who aren’t Harry Potter fans. I get them to debate the merits of the Harry Potter books, but to switch sides. And ... wow! The people who don’t give a toss about Harry Potter are at a huge disadvantage when they try to make a case for why the books are so good.

So therefore Harry Potter exists, right?

Looking at a bibliography of Kreeft’s books - endless tomes on abortion, the ‘culture war’ (and Tolkien), this atheist, at least, would have steered clear of his class. And believe me, it’s not because I’m not familiar with his arguments, I can guess them from the titles.

Posted by Jemima Cole on Monday, Aug 29, 2011 2:58 PM (EDT):

“Why exactly do you think our theology is bunk? How much of our theology do you know? Given your original post, it would seem you have little understanding of the actual theology of the Catholic Church.”

I suspect I know more about it than you do about Hinduism, say, but you’re presumably comfortable dismissing Hinduism as bunk.

I’ve read City of God cover to cover, I’ve read Aquinas. I didn’t study theology at university, as I’m afraid I passed my exams and got into my first choice course.

Again, your instinct is to jump down the theology rabbit hole, not to look at the good works the church does.

“If I pray while I pick up the hammer (to use Erika’s expression), then I am doing more than you are by merely picking up the hammer.”

Not to help you’re not. Technically you are doing more. But if I pick up a hammer and sing a song, I’m ‘doing more’ than picking up a hammer.

“You can cite many examples of Chrisians and even Catholics who do not exemplify this mindset of service in the Christian life, and even a few atheists who do. That does not change the fact that Christians have a greater tendancy towards this level of service than other groups.”

Your evidence for that being? ‘Tendency towards’ meaning that there are higher levels of charitable giving, community service and donation? It’s a measurable claim. I don’t know a specific survey that measures it.

Posted by Jemima Cole on Monday, Aug 29, 2011 2:45 PM (EDT):

“Jemima, I was not talking about praying vs. donating blood, etc. I was talking about your general attitude”

Yes, exactly. When I donate blood, do you think the recipient is all that bothered about my personality or which gods I choose to worship?

Your post just demonstrates my point. Jennifer’s ‘conversion’ stories are all the same. She thought something already, she saw there was something that reinforced her existing belief in Catholicism, she became a Catholic. All of them boil down to ‘look, God agrees with me!’. It’s an ego trip, something that enables her to do more of what she was doing anyway. The ‘oh, we sit somewhere you haven’t been’ stuff is exactly the same. It’s about *you*. Jennifer’s story was all about how *she* helped and felt good.

It’s intense selfishness, the need to invoke *the creator of the universe and his natural order* to justify buying a homeless person a sandwich. Just buy him a sandwich, like the rest of us do.

Posted by lethargic on Monday, Aug 29, 2011 2:43 PM (EDT):

Once again, Jen ... Bravo!

Posted by JohnnyZoom on Monday, Aug 29, 2011 2:34 PM (EDT):

I think we should all recall Prof Peter Kreeft’s experiences with his philosophy classes.

He lines up the religious students on one side, and the atheist/nonreligious students on the other, and has them debate. Only, the religious students have to defend the atheist position, and the atheists have to defend the religious one.

Without fail he says, the religous students (arguing for atheism) kick the stuffin’ out of the atheist students arguing for religion.

Simply put, the religious students actually understand the arguments for atheism. The atheist students do not understand arguments for religion. Thus the debate bloodbath. This occurs even after Kreeft goes over the differing positions in his class; they simply can’t—or won’t—articulate them.

This says volumes about intellectual honesty in this particular conflict.

Congrats to Jen for her blog recognition. Well deserved.

Posted by John Thrippleton on Monday, Aug 29, 2011 2:15 PM (EDT):

Jemima,

Why exactly do you think our theology is bunk? How much of our theology do you know? Given your original post, it would seem you have little understanding of the actual theology of the Catholic Church.

I also think that you didn’t read Jennifer’s entry thouroughly. She was speaking to “the overarching aim of everything else on the list.” That is the difference. You speak to whether prayer or action does more to help the needy. Why are they mutually exclusive? If I pray while I pick up the hammer (to use Erika’s expression), then I am doing more than you are by merely picking up the hammer.

Jennifer’s point is that service permeates the Christian life. She might have well felt put out by this woman infringing on time she intended to spend on herself, especially since it was time where the kids would be taken care of, and she could get errands done, gone to the hair dresser, etc. Instead she took that time and helped someone else. This mindset of service is part of the Christian life.

You can cite many examples of Chrisians and even Catholics who do not exemplify this mindset of service in the Christian life, and even a few atheists who do. That does not change the fact that Christians have a greater tendancy towards this level of service than other groups.

I agree with Erika that your approach is all wrong in your post. It doesn’t lead to conversation, and does not address the actual claims Jennifer makes in her entry.

God Bless,
John Thrippleton

Posted by JoAnna on Monday, Aug 29, 2011 2:14 PM (EDT):

Jemima, I’d take you a lot more seriously if I already didn’t know, from previous encounters with you on other NCR articles, that you’re simply here to troll. (For example, you make the claim that abortion workers have a higher chance of being killed by a pro-lifer than a woman does of dying due to complications of abortion, and then you refuse to back up your claims with actual evidence and statistics when questioned.)

If you’re so happy in your atheism, why do you feel the need to come to a Catholic blog to defend it? Something to think about…

Posted by Erika Evans on Monday, Aug 29, 2011 1:30 PM (EDT):

Jemima, I was not talking about praying vs. donating blood, etc. I was talking about your general attitude of atheism (“bull——pie” and so on) and wondering why you keep peddling it here. The point, which you seem to have not understood, is that everything you say about how stoooopid belief in God is, we’ve all heard before. We understand your arguments. You don’t understand ours. We’re sitting somewhere you haven’t been and you don’t comprehend. I hope and pray for you that you do someday {I hope you will come into the fullness of truth; you sound like I did ten years ago; I know it’s possible} but unless you’re asking honest/respectful questions and listening to the answers, you and other avowed atheists are wasting your time here. It’s like you honestly think that we’ve never thought of God-as-Santa before and will go, “Wow! You’re so right!” when you spew that stuff out.
.
If you hadn’t stormed into the room with sophomoric phrases such as “Jesus as a bit of a racist” and actually said things like, “When should a good Christian kneel and pray, and when should a good Christian pick up a hammer and build a house, and what is the difference?” or “Why/how does religious belief make a person more likely to help the person in need? Or does it at all?” then you could have a real conversation.

Posted by Jemima Cole on Monday, Aug 29, 2011 1:16 PM (EDT):

“it’s like listening to a nine-year-old tell her educated parents why college is a waste of time.”

That’s a sort of anti-analogy. There’s a direct correlation between level of education and religious belief, but it’s that the more educated someone is, the less religious they tend to be.

But there’s no correlation whatsoever between how smart someone is and how much they help others. Education has no bearing on that. So arrogantly asserting that somehow you ‘know more’ isn’t really the issue. ‘Do you *help* more?’. That’s the question (This wasn’t an invitation to get into a pissing contest, by the way).

Posted by Erika Evans on Monday, Aug 29, 2011 12:52 PM (EDT):

Jemima, I’d venture a guess that the vast majority of people who read here are well aware of and fully understand all the atheist arguments you make. The thing is, you are not well aware of and you do not fully understand our theist reality. I’m not sure what you try to accomplish here with posts such as above—it’s like listening to a nine-year-old tell her educated parents why college is a waste of time. You don’t seem to have been where we are, but we’ve pretty much all been where you are, and have gone through it and past it to arrive somewhere else. (I am assuming that you are a lifelong atheist, and not a former Christian who has lost her faith. If I am incorrect I do apologize.)

Posted by Jemima Cole on Monday, Aug 29, 2011 12:43 PM (EDT):

Well, this atheist thinks that helping others is great, and if other people need to swallow a big slice of bullshit pie before they help others, well at least they’re helping others after they’ve eaten. If they need some validation or the belief that they’ll get paid back after they die ... well, who cares, at least they’re helping.

Here’s the thing for me. After a disaster, I think if one atheist donates a pint of blood, and a billion Catholics all pray, the atheist has done more to help.

And Christians get all huffy about that, and say things like ‘no, who is to say that knowing people are praying for you doesn’t help?’ or some weird nonsense that boils down to how mailbombing God with prayer has brought the problem to his attention so he’ll see people right. Or something. Or they demonstrate they haven’t got past the title of The Selfish Gene.

But they’re letting theology get in the way of the facts. Here’s a much better response: if their religion motivates *two* Catholics to donate pints of blood, now it’s done more good than that atheist. And it motivates far more than that. Of *course* the Catholic church does more good than any one atheist - even an atheist like Bill Gates, who has donated literally billions to the fight against malaria - has or can. For every rogue in it for the bling and the glory, like Agnes Bojaxhiu, there are millions of Catholics who actually just get on quietly doing good things and helping.

The danger with Jennifer’s line of thinking - apart from the fact that, as ever, God seems to exist for her solely to validate what she was thinking already - is that it defines religion as, per se, ‘a good work’.

If Jennifer was still doing what she was doing before (and more), with a new sense of purpose, well religion works for her. At heart, this is what atheists have come to call the Santa Delusion. If you want people to be nice instead of naughty, and they think they’ll get presents if they’re nice ... well, if they fall for it, you probably end up with nicer people. But it’s also something that’s patronizing and unhealthy for anyone who has passed their ninth birthday. And acting like Santa exists in no way alters the fact he doesn’t, so at the heart of all this, there’s a lie, and I think that’s a problem.

But again, that’s mere theology. Here’s the real problem: if Jennifer has stopped or scaled back what she used to do, substituting ‘a religious life’ for actual, practical help - more prayer, less blood - then it’s not working. If she used to teach disadvantaged kids and now she only hangs around churches feeling smug she joined the right team when poor people come in, she’s not living a better life. If she does both, well, there’s no net gain, but ... whatever.

Jesus said this, with the Good Samaritan. Although it exposes Jesus as a bit of a racist - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-nh7xOjkSs - the story spells it out: it doesn’t matter what club you say you’re in, in matters what you actually, practically do. He’d prefer one atheist to donate a pint of blood than a billion Catholics to say in a prayer that they feel a bit sad or think of it as someone else’s problem. We can all agree on that.

Posted by Jared on Monday, Aug 29, 2011 12:16 PM (EDT):

Blessed Teresa of Calcutta’s famous five words, “You did it to me.”

Posted by Christina on Monday, Aug 29, 2011 11:50 AM (EDT):

I like it! I too, await the atheists, but I’ll leave off getting the follow up comment emails, because I have no interest in reading someone’s flaming anger.

Posted by Rachel W. on Monday, Aug 29, 2011 11:41 AM (EDT):

I am waiting for the firefall of atheists who will reign down with their insistence that they are just like us except they don’t rely on - get ready to laugh, because it is just so funny….the “Flying Spaghetti Monster” to do good. I just love that one!

They will insist that they are just as charitable, giving and philanthropic as we are (they’ll even mention the great George Soros as proof). But history reveals that hospitals, orphanages and more were begun by Catholics and continued to this day by many who do it not to pad a resume, or even feel good but because they were asked to do so by God.

Now, of course, there are some atheists who feel as Ayn Rand did. She thought very poorly of any charity work (I am speaking kindly of her hatred towards any charity) but then again, they are free to feel that way. Or at least, until they, or someone they love needs it.

And despite their claims, life is better because of what we do. One of the Archbold brothers did a blog about what the results would be if the Catholic Church stopped doing what it did for just one day - imagine what would happen if every Christian took a break from caring for the least of these…...

Join the Discussion

We encourage a lively and honest discussion of our content. We ask that charity guide your words.
By submitting this form, you are agreeing to our discussion guidelines.
Comments are published at our discretion. We won’t publish comments that lack charity, are off topic, or are more than 400 words.
Thank you for keeping this forum thoughtful and respectful.

Name:

Email:

Write your comment:

Please enter the word you see in the image below:

Notify me of follow-up comments.

Comments are no longer being accepted on this article.

About Jennifer Fulwiler

Jennifer Fulwiler is a writer and speaker who converted to Catholicism after a life of atheism. She's a contributor to the books The Church and New Media and Atheist to Catholic: 11 Stories of Conversion, and is writing a book based on her personal blog, ConversionDiary.com. She and her husband live in Austin, TX with their five young children, and were featured in the nationally televised reality show Minor Revisions. You can follow her on Twitter at @conversiondiary.